Debated for two years in Public Forum at my previous high school. I'm currently a freshman at Hunter College, where I compete in moot court and mock trial.

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

Weighing arguments is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

I am a former high school PF debater.

My biggest priorities are clash and quality arguments rather than quantity.

If there is no through line for a point in rebuttal and summary speeches I consider it dropped.

I flow logic rather than specific cards.

Please weigh.

Parent judge; first year judging. Quality of arguments is preferred to sheer quantity.

I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

Hi! I'm a parent judge with only a few tournaments under my belt.

- I cannot comprehend a very fast WPM, so Spreading makes you lose speaks.

- I am not aware of any Debate-y terms, it is ok if you use them, but make sure to explain them after.

- I like for all debaters give respect to their opponents, toxicity will lose you the ballot.

- I take account of cross when voting on the round, so proceed carefully. Good Luck to all Debaters!

Hi! I debated for four years at Hunter.

-Most important thing is to HAVE FUN!!! <3333

-Please speak slowly! Think it's educational to say good material in fewer words!

-I don't really care about evidence! Just no outlandish claims.

-If both teams are okay with it, let's skip grand cross... I never find it that productive.

-Please pick ONE argument to extend in the latter half of the round and weigh! All of my RFDs are usually "this team weighed and that was compelling to me."

-I really like watching great speakers. If you are funny, please be funny! (conversely, if you're not, don't)

-Please content warn any potentially triggering arguments!

Hello, I am a parent judge in my 5th year of LD judging. My preferences:

1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.

2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Make sure to crystallize throughout the round, speak clearly, and be respectful.

I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Updated 1/13/21

Hi! Thanks for looking at my bio. I'm a former NYU debater and former president of the NYU policy team. My experience in policy debate has been 4 years of college debate, 3 years of which were open, and I have coached for 4 years. I have coached for Success Academy Midtown West for 2 years. I am currently a law student at NYU Law.

As a debater, I did just about every form and style of debate (everything from 6 min of politics DAs in the block to performance args with narratives and/or poetry), but I honestly do not have a particular preference for arguments anywhere on the spectrum. As a judge, I view my role primarily as an evaluator of the arguments presented before me in the round. If you decide for whatever reason (consciously or unconsciously) that it's not in your best interest to frame the round for me, I'll default first to the flows and if you've messed those up too much, then my secondary default is to vote for the side that has done the best debating overall by some fun arbitrary standard I'll invent for you and if neither side did a particularly great job debating according to that standard, I'll vote for the team that was the better collaborative pair in the debate space.

T: Yup, it’s a voting issue, and it's an a priori one so just go ahead and answer it however you want, but at least answer it. Counter-interps are probably a good idea if you’re aff, but you can convince me otherwise if that's not the path you want to take in answering it. I'll gladly entertain any T arguments, but I expect a full warranted out standards and impact debate coming off the violation. Small tricky affs are small and tricky, so if T is your generic go to, take the time to explain how they untopical and why that has significance for the round don't just cry that they're unfair for 5 minutes because all that will do is just make me very sad and I'll be wishing that we were having a different debate than the one we're having.

Disads: Turns case arguments are great, and I love to see them. Note, I'm generally pretty generous with allowing links on DAs to affs until they're contested. Neg, be tight on your internal link story. If your explanation of the DA doesn't make sense to me, I'm not going to pull the trigger on it if the aff is winning a reasonable part of their case. Note, if it’s a particularly bad DA, aff’s don’t need evidence to answer it.

Kritiks: I like these. A lot. They're pretty neat and let you do a lot of fun tricks. However, to go for these, I think you need a clear explanation of how the K functions, and you still need to do impact calculus. There has to be at least one clear link articulated consistently from the block to the 2nr. If you don’t understand the K, I probably won’t understand your articulation of it either.

Framework: Specificity is important for the negative. Point out exactly how we should frame the debate, why that’s a good idea, and any in round abuse. Don’t neglect the line by line in these debates. Role of the ballot args are nice when they meet the following criteria: they're consistent, make sense, and are carried through the round.

Counterplans: These need to have a well-articulated net benefit. Other than that, anything goes.

I will typically not judge kick the CP or the K alt. Just do the basic work of kicking out of these if you're not going for one, never assume I'll do work for you that favors you.

Debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. Enjoy your round, and try to make it fun for everyone in the room.

I really enjoy clever jokes and entertaining CXs.

I am a parent judge. When presenting your arguments, claims, evidence, and warrants should be stated clearly and in an organized manner. Please, speak clearly and at a conversational pace, or I will not be able to flow your arguments. Do not assume I will understand if you use jargon. Show respect and do not talk over your opponents in the crossfire. I prefer speakers to crystalize their extensions at the end of the round and expose any major inconsistency your opponent makes. Finally, I am looking for clear impacts on your claims.

Hi there! My name is Andrew, and I'm a current college senior. While in high school, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for Regis, but I haven't continued with debate since then (besides judging to help out my school when needed).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered staunchly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. That's definitely the style of debate I prefer — that said, I understand that that's not necessarily the trajectory of the activity these days, and my experience in LD means I'll probably understand whatever you throw my direction. If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round!

I competed in extemp, congress, and pf at Shrewsbury High School for four years.

I go for argumentation over style, and I primarily vote by resolving the weighing debate and vote for who best links into the weighing.

Preferences:

- Please start weighing early

- No kritiks, plans, or theories

- Please frontline in the rebuttal as the second speaking team

- I am okay with faster speeds but I will likely be unable to keep up with spreading

- I do not flow cross, unless there is a significant concession.

- No new weighing in second final focus

Most importantly, expect a L0 for any ___ist arguments, and please do not be demeaning towards anyone in the round.

Feel free to reach out to me at steve.asthana@gmail.com

Hi! I debated PF for four years at Hunter College High School. I am doing APDA in college right now. I can generally flow speed.

February topic: Their evidence is not specific to West Africa is NOT a response. I will not flow it.
Please please please do not use weighing mechanisms like "strength of link" and "clarity of evidence."
Avoid evidence debates.
I don't care about cards too much! Have warrants and weigh!
I don't know too much about theory but I will flow it/try to understand it.
Read content warnings if you're going to read something potentially triggering. If you are unsure, ask anyway!

Don't be rude, sexist, racist etc. If you are offensive, I will drop you.

Have fun!

1. Weigh!! This isn't just telling me "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc" but also offering an explanation. You need to establish the comparative between your world vs. your opponent's world.

2. Please signpost!! If I don't know where it goes on the flow, it's going to be super difficult for me to consider the argument in my decision (and I just won't write it down). To that point, make sure when you extend cards, you don't just say "Extend the Smith card." You need to tell me what Smith says and why the card is important.

3. I really don't want (or need) an off-time roadmap.

4. I don't flow cross so if something important is said please bring it up in another speech. Let your opponents answer the question and don't be rude.

5. If you want me to actually vote off your link turn, you need to explain the impact of it in sum/FF.

6. Quality > Quantity. Cards are important but I also think creating a narrative and establishing the comparative is important as well. Just giving me all these cards with no explanation forces me to do the comparison for you, which I don't like doing.

7. I'm noticing that theory and Ks are becoming more common in PF. I'm really unfamiliar with them, and PF isn't really the type of debate for kritiks/theory in my opinion. I won't evaluate any theory/K's in my decision (unless I absolutely have to).

Hello debaters,

I am currently a 2nd year Medical Student. I've been actively participating in Model UN, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas for 4 years; I'm currently coaching and judging Public Forum. Likewise, I like to think of debate as an empowering experience for both the debaters and the judges, so be respectful to the activity we all love.

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled speed and tone; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round. I don't like Ks, I think they take away from the value of Public Forum, nevertheless, I will flow them (I just might not buy them). Likewise, I like to say I'm tech> truth, but if the tech is ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points. (pls make it interesting for me)

2. Time yourself

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly. (I'll prefer if you say you can't find it, instead of spending 5 mins of the round looking for it)

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

7. Please don't add me to email chains or links. Just share the evidence in the round, and I'll be happy.

8. As I said, I've been debating for a long time, so don't try to create PF rules, I know them.

Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

(+1 speaker point if you make a Friends or TikTok reference)

Junior econ + political science double major @ UChicago. Used to debate in HS/coached a successful team for 2 years but likely pretty detached from the topic/literature now, so just keep that in mind.

Email: saydinyan@uchicago.edu

---

Read content warnings for arguments that contain discussion of violence, whether it's gender-, race-, class-, or anything else-based. You should also send out an OPT-IN form before the round if you intend to read these arguments, and not read them if everyone does not consent to it.

---

TL;DR: I'm a normal tech judge. I like judging fast, techy rounds, but not when you sacrifice warranting and explanation for the sake of strategy. Please debate to your strengths and not my preferences. Winning on the flow is winning on the flow even if you do it differently than I'd prefer.

I am okay with most arguments except for ones that are offensive or exclusionary. Kind of a no-brainer.

I don't like intervention, and I think as a debater, it's in your best interest to close all doors to it. You should be resolving all clash that you want me to evaluate. This means you should be weighing and giving me specific reasons as to why I prefer your warranting/evidence/whatever over your opponents'. Obviously, if you make me intervene to resolve something I will try to be reasonable, but if you're leaving that door open, you also lose your right to complain about which direction the intervention goes.

Extend properly. I have pretty high standards for this, so to be clear, you should be extending the uniqueness, warrant, internal link, and impact on your offense, for theory you need to explicitly extend your interp, etc, etc.

I love hearing creative and/or smart strategies (baiting some type of response you can dump turns on, reading an impact turn on yourself to kick out of link turns or vice versa, smart overviews, etc.) Obviously not required but I'll have way more fun.

Progressive args: Just FYI I went to a small school and never ran/formally learned progressive arguments, but I've coached teams that read them and I'm fine with you reading them. In general, theory should be okay. IRL I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I'm not a hack for anything and you can convince me to vote either way on these. I definitely have some implicit bias towards theory when used to check abuse, and I do generally prefer good substance debates over theory debates. I'm not super familiar with K literature but have judged Ks before, and if you can explain it well and articulate how things function in the context of the round then you will not have an issue. However, as I said above, it's always in your best interest to close doors to intervention and tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate parts of your argument.

---

Remember that you're allowed to have fun and insert humor into the round. Please be nice to each other. It's a good real-world skill.

Finally, you can feel free to postround me. If a judge can't defend their decision it probably wasn't a good one. As long as you stay polite I'm happy to explain my thinking.

TL;DR: Just look at the bolded stuff in the Flow Section if you don't want to read everything.

Background: I debated 4 four years in high school in Public Forum Debate (2016-2020). I dabbled in Extemp.

Lay Stuff:

Don’t be a jerk, otherwise I'm going to give you low speaks and a low point win if you happen to win by flow. If you are any type of -ist in round or has an argument that is- you are dropped. Be inclusive and kind

Speed = fine, but I will say “clear” and stop flowing if too fast.

Speaks: high avg speaks if you do everything right- 28. Ill drop speaks if you are not civil, have an abusive argument/fw. If u make me laugh/snicker +.5 speaks. Also if you do key voters right +.5 speaks.

Clipped or Falsified Evidence = drop, be ethical, stop clipping

Time yourselves and hold each other and your opponents accountable.

CX: it’s for you guys to clarify things/poke holes (it's ok to use it to clarify, don't feel bad). I may listen I may not, I'm still not gonna flow it either way. Whatever you or your opponent says that is important in CX better be brought up in speech otherwise it doesn’t count. Don’t be abusive with follow up questions.

Flow stuff:

I really don't care for Rhetoric heavy debate, just get to the point. I want clash and clear warranting.

I expect 2nd rebuttal to respond to the first rebuttal responses. (The fact that some people don't do this is weird to me).

SIGNPOST WHEREVER YOU GO, it’s a basic skill every debater needs to do.

In general I prefer the Quality > Quantity of responses. Please Don't Card Bomb Me.

Don’t flow through red ink, I will likely catch you and what you say won’t be counted in round. Additionally I have a pet peeve of saying “flow through contention 1” or "flow through smith 19" and then moving on, u better explain to me exactly how your contention/warrant/card actually flows through and what the argument/content is.

I like Key Voters but if you don’t know how to do them I’m fine with down the flow as long as u signpost and condense/collapse well. In Summary since it’s now 3 minutes, I want some weighing analysis at the end, but there should be more weighing in FF.

In your final speeches (esp Summary): Extend your warrants otherwise I am not giving you access to your impacts. If something is brought up in FF that isn't in Summary, it doesn't count- don't flow through red ink, and be consistent with your partner.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING GOOD WEIGH IN YOUR FINAL SPEECHES. If you don’t weigh you essentially leave it up to my opinion on what I value the most. If you guys can use and talk about multiple weighing mechanisms like the probability, scope, time-frame, magnitude of your impacts in relation to each other, and which mechanism should be preferred over the other- you'll catch my interest. Alongside any logical fallacy names like; “slippery slope”, and “straw man”.

Also you can definitely talk about cards and methodology in your speeches. Just don't let evidence debate be all that the debate boils down to. I may ask for and read for critical cards after the debate too, regardless of evidence debate.

Ill probably disclose at the end if you made the debate clean and easy (and if I am allowed to) but if not I detail the ballot.

Framework/Nontraditional stuff:

Don’t ever give me a “framework is utilitarianism” in case because that is inherently what Public Forum debate is (you can use it as a response in rebuttal and so on). This also goes for "Cost Benefit Analysis" if it is in the resolution. That being said I welcome non traditional frameworks and interpretations of the resolutions that have a rational basis that you can explain well and have cards to back up. I really enjoy and love fw debates. Also shouldn't be an abusive fw.

Please respond to your opponents framework if they have one, cuz that could ultimately cost you the round.

I'd rather not judge a K/theory/plans in PF please (don't really know about them in depth anyway). Although I would rather not judge it, I am open to hearing these Kritiks/Theory but you will need to be able to explain VERY clearly and how it works in round not only to me but your opponents, because if they don't know what you are doing it kind of ends up being abusive cuz they can't or don't know how to respond to them. If you end up using progressive debate techniques in PF I hope it is supplemental to traditional debate cuz as I said above I have a very loose understanding of this stuff and would likely be a time waste.

Plans are not allowed in PF (NSDA Rule). You can have a advocacy (NOT A PLAN- difference is in a plan you specify how you are going through with it, advocacy is just a general recommendation) as long as u can explain how it makes sense under the resolution in round (not after when u are trying to persuade me). Also make sure its not overly abusive to your opponents and puts them in a corner where they can't get out, that ties into being a jerk.

Feel free to ask me questions about any of this or something not here.

I am a Senior at Harvard. My debate experience consists of World Schools and British/American Parliamentary; I am an international student and have no experience debating Public Forum. Please don’t speak at an unreasonable pace, and please do be civil. I like evidence and warrants to be used and extended in the final summary.

I do not like teams who run kays. I do not know what kays are. But I have been told I do not like them.

Rutgers College, Rutgers University, BA Russian and East European Area Studies

Rutgers Business School, MBA

I teach History, AP Economics, and Business. While I'm a new judge and have a lot to learn, I can already tell you I'm not a fan of spreading and throwing out statistics, data, and vocabulary when it's obvious you don't understand the stats and data, and lack fluency with the vocabulary. Use less data intelligently and make your point. More data thrown out and used poorly won't impress me. It will underwhelm me. Present a cogent and well thought out argument that is supported by your data. Oh, and by the way, please clearly state where your sources are from. If you don't state where they are from or I can't understand you, your support is merely conjecture/opinion to me and holds no water.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

I like to see the evidences cited. Please post them in the chat window. Also, speaking fast is fine.

No spreading. Weigh case. Collapse where needed. If you are disrespectful during CX, you will drop the round.

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

I am lay but I flow. I'm mostly a local circuit judge although I have judged 5 or so national tournaments. Don't make personal comments or take the round where it doesn't need to go. If you are a jerk, your speaks will suffer greatly.

I evaluate the round like I'm tech>truth but keep it believable.

Speed: conversational, don't spread, card dumping probably is a bad idea for me

Case: Don't read four contentions, I don't enjoy the strategy of running one just to drop it every round.

Rebuttal: Implications are a must, tell me why your response matters. I won't consider anything terminal defense unless it is implied as such. Warranted analytics>>>unwarranted cards. Weighing should probably start in rebuttal although I will evaluate it in summary as well. Signpost!

Summary: Weigh, I will default scope and magnitude but strength of link comes first. Extend your case with warranting, card names are not enough: give me your case story. First summary should frontline but nothing new in second summary. Everything that's in your final focus should be in summary.

Crossfire: You should be able to defend your warrants in crossfire but I'm not gonna flow it. If your opponent concedes something in cross, say it in a speech.

Final Focus: Pretty straight forward. Extend everything you want me to evaluate. Extensions from rebuttal are abusive don't do it. Defense is partially sticky, I get the concept but don't hold me to it. Extend your weighing, clashing weighing analyses need to be addressed. New responses in final are weird... don't.

Progressive args: I have 0 experience with this and think its corrosive to debate. If there is a serious in round abuse, you don't have to tell me I will deal with it myself.

My email is brianbenchek@gmail.com put me on your email chain. I will read evidence if its highly contested or if you tell me to in a speech.

Have fun

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Newish parent judge:

-If you speak too fast, things will be missed, so it is in your best interest to speak slowly

-Please time yourself or let me know if you plan not to

-Try to keep the debate jargon to a minimum as I don't have personal debate experience

-I enjoy signposting and off time road maps so it'd be very helpful if you provided me with those

-I am a doctor outside of judging, so I recommend not making stuff up related to medicine

-I don't completely flow during cross, so if you want me to remember something, emphasize it in your speeches

-No theory or k's please

-Be nice to your opponent

-I don't disclose after rounds, also please try not to influence my decision after the round has ended

Have fun!

While I have not formally done debate, I have participated as a judge multiple times, and I work as a Professor and Dean at a University. In debate, I am fine with speed as long as I can understand what you are saying and the arguments are coherent. I vote based on who is doing a better job with the argument. I preference a better debater over an argument that I agree with. The presentation of data and the use of strong sources is important. I will not vote on racist, sexist, homophobic arguments. I appreciate the strategic use of cross-examination, not for personal attacks. I am not familiar with the use of theory and it will not be a successful strategy.

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

I prefer team members to speak slow and explain points. Everyone should talk to each other with respect. I do not know the topic at all so please make sure to explain the topic very well.

I believe in a passionate , less robotic presentation of thoughts in debate. Always a pleasure to judge such events where we stretch our minds to new horizons and get more self-aware.

Hello I am Parul

Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debate.

This is what I will be looking for as a judge:

§ Please be polite and respectful of your fellow debaters, treat people as you would like to be treated

§ Clear, concise and coherent communication. Please do avoid speaking too fast if it is going to detract from the impact and clarity of presenting key content from your case

§ Veracity of your argument is of utmost importance: ensure all facts are substantiated

§ Clear, balanced, coherent, cogent cases that are well articulated

§ Teamwork is important to me, ensure you work in concert with your team members, you are there to support each other as ONE team. Please flow with one another

§ I am averse to debate jargon, so please refrain!

§ Personal differences and factors not pertinent to the case in question are irrelevant to me e.g., personal references, to race/ color, creed and of course gender

§ Emotion and passion about your case is fundamental, use this conviction to present your case not in a personal context vs. your opponents

§ I will be looking for clear final focus and summaries rounds which should harmonise with the opening case

§ Remember if you had to list the top 5 things to a person in an elevator why your case is the right one what would you say with clarity, honesty, strength of conviction and resounding belief in your cause

§ Finally… have fun and good luck!

Parent judge since 2015

I use flow method to follow if team has made a contention stick, strength of opponents rebuttals, etc

You should use evidence to make your case; opinion and logic without supporting facts is not winning strategy

You should speak clearly and articulately; fewer points but ones made clearly and consistently are best

I will disclose in virtual tournaments when tournament organizer permits and will always provide general feedback if asked.

When I judge a debate, I look for the team that is the most prepared and the most convincing. Bonus if you are composed, speak clearly, and are quick on your feet.

My background is primarily in parliamentary debate.

Parent Judge.

Be clear, don't rush, don't be nervous.

I debated PF for 4 years at NSU University School in South Florida. I vote off the flow and am fine with speed (as long as you’re clear). Here are some more specific considerations.

1. Extend both warrants and impacts, and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. I vote for the team that has given me the easiest route to the ballot without intervention on my behalf.

2. For first speaking teams, I'm fine with terminal defense being extended from rebuttal to final focus.

3. Offense must be extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote for it.

4. I'll call cards if you ask me to call them, or if I have doubts about them.

5. Please signpost throughout the round!! This especially applies to the summary/final focus speeches — if I don't know where you are on the flow, it is much less likely I flow everything you say.

6. I determine speaker points based on (1) clarity (2) civility (3) strategy.

(humor is also appreciated)

Feel free to ask any other specific questions before the round starts.

I am a former parent judge and now I suppose a citizen judge (our daughter who did Speech & Debate graduated high school in 2019), and this '21-'22 school year is my 7th year judging.

I have primarily judged Debate (all events), but have judged Speech as well.

I enjoy having the opportunity to watch students press themselves intellectually while expanding their speaking and debating skills. In addition I believe our Speech & Debate coaches and those who run and support tournaments are performing a meritorious service for students. For these reasons I can think of almost no better way to spend my volunteering time.

I take judging seriously and as such I try to ensure to always put forth my best effort.
Thus you can expect for debate events that I will have an at least abecedarian understanding of the subject(s) being debated and will have done reading on the resolutions and topics leading up to tournaments. I would like to think this enables me to do a more equitable job in judging.
What I won't have is a predetermined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs or preferences.

I am fine with spreading on any topic so long as it does not get too fast to capture key points and facts (which I will be using when weighing the results of the debate). I will be flowing down points as fast as I can make my fingers move.

I like to think that I am a pretty "vanilla" judge. Meaning that when judging I am going to be primarily focused that (depending on the event) contentions, values, frameworks, criteria and arguments are clear, and that they are backed up with impactful facts.
I may be slightly different than a completely "vanilla" judge in this last point - meaning that I am looking for points and facts which impact the argument the most. As this shows not only that the debater / speaker has done her or his homework, but that he or she is able to put the argument into perspective by bringing in impactful facts and figures into the debate/discussion which promote her or his argument.
Additionally I will be looking that debaters are able to think on their feet based on their opponents arguments as this is a mark of a good debater. Asking questions, poking holes in your competitors key points in a reasoned manner, as well as defending your arguments logically is what makes the debate a debate, and in congressional debate shows that you are attentive and engaged in the round.

Finally I will also be looking to ensure that all rounds are conducted in a professional and respectful manner. If conduct towards competitors crosses the line it will impact my ballot.

Most of all I look forward to doing as fair and good a job as I can.

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

Avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks. You can be aggressive in your argumentation as long as you remain respectful.

Evidence should be well sourced. If there’s a bias in your source, I will probably notice.

A good case is dynamic and able to respond to your opponent’s contentions. If you just talk fast and try to make as many points as possible in the allotted time, I will stop listening.

Consider the real world implications of the things that you suggest. If you argue about these things as if they matter, and try to actually convince me that the world you present is better than your opponent’s, you have a strong chance at winning.

Hello! I'll start by giving a little bit of background about myself. I am a fourth year student at Simon Fraser University currently majoring in Health Science. University deepened my interest in debate and thoughtful discussion through my time in philosophy clubs and courses, and I have been looking to expand my judging experience ever since. I have volunteered as a judge both at local high school tournaments across West Vancouver, and I have had the pleasure of judging at the University of British Columbia's Spring Debate Tournament.

As a judge, I appreciate speakers that take their time with their points, and speak in a respectful, concise manner. I believe it's important to explore the points carefully, breaking them down in a way that shows their strength from their foundation. Speak to those around you as people, and take the time to explain the truth of your side. The saying, albeit overused, remains exceptionally true: quality over quantity. There is no need to flood the room with sound.

TL;DR: Work as a team, speak with purpose, be respectful. You'll do great if you remember this.

Please remain respectful towards your opponents and your partner, and have fun while debating. It will be my privilege to see you debate. Best of luck!

Stephen Buchanan, parent judge, first time judging.

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, by clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

For me it all comes down to Final Focus. Please make sure you include everything you want me to consider in those 2 minutes. Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on tech and the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Last season, I thought debaters Anoosh Kumar, Nathaniel Yoon, Kevin Zeng, Maggie Mills, Sasha Haines (last year's Nats winners) and the Abbasi twins were excellent debaters.

Congrats to all you debaters. Your ability to articulate complex arguments and make them clear and simple is amazing. I am in awe of your ability to research, think on your feet, respond to some off the wall claims that are thrown at you without warning, and speak clearly and calmly with a skill well beyond your years.

I competed in national circuit PF from 2011-2014 and college speech from 2014-2018; my pronouns are she/her.

I will flow the round, so well-organized speeches that tell me where on the flow you are responding/extending is very helpful.

What I'm looking for is compelling arguments backed by reputable evidence. When there is clear "clash" between two teams I like to hear why your evidence/argument is more reputable/likely/truthful.

If your arguments are clearly racist, sexist, anti-queer, ableist, xenophobic etc., I won't vote for them.

I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.

I prefer debaters time themselves except prep time-if you ask for a running clock on prep I will keep track of how much is used over the course of the round.

I can handle a certain amount of speed and I'll speak up if you aren't clear enough. I don't have any particular preferences for how you speak-so long as we are following along and can understand what you're saying; do what makes you comfortable.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, and not so quickly their points are hard to follow. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum. Follow the time limit, provide evidence, and be prepared to provide cards quickly. Finally, please bear in mind there is a difference between being assertive and being rude.

I have 4 years PF debate experience and have attended several NSDA and NHSDLC regional and national tournaments in China, as well as Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley annual debate tournaments. I've been coaching debaters in several debate camps in China during 2019, and I have worked as a PF debate coach from 2021-2022. In turns of judging experience I've judged several regional PF debate tournaments and the 2019 NHSDLC Nationals for both MS and HS divisions, as well as Stanford/Harvard annual debate tournament.

In terms of judging PF debate, I would like to hear more weighing and impact comparison from both sides, and debaters to directly engage with opponents' arguments instead of simply presenting defensive arguments. I prefer contentions with strong logic links and data/evidence and line-by-line rebuttal.

Please don't speak too fast and focus on your logic and reasoning with clear ideas.

I am a parent judge who, a long time ago in high school, was a policy debater. I also competed in Speech events. I am a big fan of speech and debate. I have one year of judging experience of both Public Forum and Speech events.

Public Forum Debate: I enjoy hearing vigorous debates about a topic and encourage clear arguments and civil engagement. If you speak too fast or are uncivil you will loose me. In this virtual environment, some times technical issues may arise and I encourage everyone to have patience and keep your cool. I expect clear arguments and thoughtful questions cross-examination questions.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

I will not bring any preconceived notions with me into the room.

Please be clear, respectful and don't nod your head up and down, belittle or bully.

Don't make things up and be sure to back up your claims with reliable sources.

If you would like me to vote on certain arguments please bring them up in both in your summary and final focus.

I will give speaker points based on persuasiveness and clear communication and not technicalities.

I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over fast talking so please speak at a speed I can follow.

Be sure to weigh your impacts and know that as a judge I value the big picture (with supporting evidence) over line-by-line analysis in summary comments.

Have fun and good luck!

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

My name is Diya (she/her and pronounced DEE-UH). I debated throughout high school and am currently a junior at Duke (make a reference and I'll smile). I don't debate anymore ... ie I'm out of touch with fast speaking, technical debate, and am coming into this topic with no background. I will vote off the flow.

Speak clearly! Please please please don't spread. Call me traditional (I was), but speaking quickly for the sake of it is not what debate is about

Don't be rude; be respectful (if you're rude, expect low speaker points)

Frame your arguments - I'll default to util if you don't provide a better framework. WEIGH

I appreciate frontlines in second rebuttal

Warrant statistics and evidence with logic. Your numbers mean literally nothing unless you can explain to me WHY they're relevant or actually make sense. That being said, very low chance I call for evidence... you should know how to read and correctly interpret data

TLDR: Truth >= tech. Collapse, weigh, and warrant well and consistently to win my ballot. Add me to an email chain at lucy.i.chae@gmail.com

P.S. I’m pretty unfamiliar with the current meta. Let me know if my paradigm is grossly outdated.

About me:

I debated PF for 4 years at Newton South and am now a junior at Stanford. I probably won't have any topic knowledge, so please explain things well!

Critical considerations:

- Arguments: I'm a standard flow judge, but not necessarily tabula rasa—for out-there arguments, I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents for you to lose it.

- Speeches: Defense is sticky for 1st summary (unless 2nd rebuttal frontlined it, in which case you do need to respond) but probably a good idea as speeches are longer now. The more you reiterate and re-explain defense, the more I am likely to factor it into my decision. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I will be annoyed if you read new contentions as an "oFfEnSiVe OvErViEw." Summary and FF should mirror each other.

- Evidence: "They don't have a warrant" is an adequate response for rebuttals/frontlines, but I usually won't buy "they don't have evidence" unless it's about a ridiculous claim or it's about your opponent's case (evidence standards are higher for that). Warranted evidence/empiric >= warranted analytic > unwarranted evidence/empiric. I will call cards if requested to do so or if I feel like it's imperative for my decision. Even so, you should sort things out by comparing evidence in your speeches yourselves (or even better, sort it out at the warrant level) so I don't have to resort to this.

- Weighing: Warranted comparative weighing is the best weighing and meta-weighing is also great. Please also RESPOND to your opponents' weighing instead of just making up your own, because I won't know how to directly reconcile these weighing frameworks. I really dislike impact number comparisons because that's just lazy and it's also hard to quantify debate arguments that depend on links that may or may not happen. Turns and disads must be weighed to count as offense; otherwise, they're just a weaker form of terminal D (just saying the opposite of what your opponents claim will not guarantee that I believe you). Link-ins are not weighing unless you literally explain why your link is stronger than your opponents' (i.e. weigh the links). Lastly, FF is too late for new weighing.

- Extensions: Frontlines solely by themselves are not adequate case extensions—you should be going through the entire link/impact chain. I'm most likely to vote for an argument if both the link(s) AND the impact(s) are warranted, extended, and implicated (weighed/contextualized within the resolution). I value warrants consistent in every speech; don't be deliberately vague earlier in the round in order to dodge proper responses. Doing nice warrant comparisons instead of just repeating card names for frontlines will make me happy.

- Progressive: I believe that PF should have a low barrier of entry, so my standards for what constitutes an adequate response to techily and inaccessibly-run progressive args are pretty low. If your opponents are being offensive enough to warrant extreme "drop the debater" types of Ks, I will take notice regardless of the K and drop them. If you want to run an interesting K on a resolution where it's relevant, go ahead—just make sure it's paragraph form/structured like a substance case and easily understandable. In terms of theory, I tolerate condo the most (I think it checks for abuses relating to substance, but imo you shouldn't waste time reading it in shell form), anything else less, and disclosure the least (if you read disclosure theory, I will stop flowing and start filling out my ballot to give you the L). I would be willing to evaluate a full-on progressive round (shells, wacky and nontopical Ks/theory and all) only if both teams are fine with it beforehand. Although I'll try my best, I have close to zero experience judging progressive, so be warned.

Less critical considerations:

- Speed: 250 wpm (basically a 1000 word case in 4 min) is the max. Although I flow on a computer, anything close to that will also make my spreadsheet look messy, reducing my ability to evaluate the round. I will say "CLEAR" if necessary.

- Speaks: I will generally award speaks based on technical debating skills (i.e. content). Speaks also can swing based on your behavior because it's the only concrete way in which I can encourage good norms/discourage bad norms without intervening in the result of the round (assuming again that you aren't extremely offensive because that is an auto-drop). If you want a closer look at my preferences, refer to the section below.

Other stuff:

• I'm not a fan of weird jargon that doesn't really make sense to your average person (or even average debater). I don't know what "uniqueness controls the direction of the link" means.
• I will bump speaks by 0.5 if you show that the case you read from is literally comprised of cut cards (not just that you cut your evidence, which is a basic expectation).
• I will reward kindness. I won't explicitly reward funniness because some people are just naturally bad at that and I don't want to put them at a disadvantage, but humor is always appreciated.
• You can wear whatever makes you comfortable.
• I probably won't be paying attention during cross, so bring things up in a later speech if needed.
• Quoted from Michael Lezhnin's paradigm: "you may also send a well written post round essay about why you should've won the round. i won't read it but it will be cathartic for you so i strongly recommend it, should you feel your loss was undeserved. so far no one has taken me up on this offer, so i assume im just a godly judge."
• ^unlike Mike, I will read your essay because I'd like to see how/if I screwed up, but the concept still stands overall.

Ask me before round, email me at lucy.i.chae@gmail.com, or hmu on Facebook messenger if you have any other questions! Be kind and have fun.

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Make an email chain: justinjchen8 @ gmail (dot) com

I'm going to copy Jeff Buntin's paradigm format (although I'm unsure if he's the first), because I like paradigms that are quick and easy to read.

Policy------------------X---------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------X----------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL---------------X------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Delgado 92

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die----------X-------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------------------------------X--------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face (I have a bad poker face though) ---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points----X-------------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts--------------------------X------CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive--------------------X-----D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------X----plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

For LD: I only debate policy debate, so my judging is inherently going to lean towards policy debate esqe arguments (including both policy and kritikal arguments). But novices should just focus on being clear, articulating their stories well, and engaging with their opponent's arguments.

I will almost never vote on an RVI. Either the team loses to theory or theory doesn't become a voter

For PF:

Anything you do will be fine for me, although don't make community norm arguments because I almost certainly don't know any pf community norms.

If you set up an email chain and send all pieces of evidence that you'll read in a speech before the speech I will automatically give you +0.5 speaks. The lack of evidence accountability and transparency is one of the worst things about pf and I think it makes the activity as a whole worse.

If you want to ask questions or even post-round after round, please do so. I usually have a lot of comments about specific arguments in a round but I usually keep my rfd's short and only about the stuff necessary for the ballot

Policy:

Arg specific notes:

I love DAs and CPs, but since I'm from the northeast I encounter kritikal arguments like 80% of the time. So while I love policy args, but I won't hack for it.

I enjoy framework debates the most, but I really dislike judging policy T.

Specific Args:

Ks:

Either it directly concludes that some mechanism of the aff is bad, or it needs to prove that the scholarship or assumptions of the aff are bad too. (That requires winning the FW debate at least holding the Aff towards their scholarship). I'll judge a KvPolicy debate in order FW/Thesis claims->Impact calc->Links->alt solvency. I know K's have a tendency towards being generic especially in the 1NC, but the 2AC still needs to have specific cards and answers, otherwises that puts the aff in a bad position.

K Affs:

Never ran it, and most neg teams should just go for FW in front of me. I'm can be convinced that fairness is an impact, but I would default to it being an I/L. I have not seen a really good K aff counter interpretation, that's grounded in the res/lit and access I/L's better than the neg, so you're honestly better off going for the impact turn debate.

Theory:

I lean neg even though I was a 2A. If the neg is not being ridiculously abusive, I'll let it slide. And I will not evaluate theory like font size or missing period in the plan text.

CPs:
I won't judge kick unless you win that theory debate. I lean towards functional competition rather than textual competition, but, again, that's really a debate to be had. If you want to try to go for positional competition go for it I guess. When I'm deciding the perm debate, it's usually down towards competition.

DAs:

I like all kinds of policy DAs. I will prefer the link over the uq. Case turns are usually necessary unless you spend alot of time on impact calculus.

Case Debate:

I love specific case debate. Cards are great, however I love seeing debaters just tear apart aff's with smart analytics and re-cut cards, because no aff is 100% perfect. As long as you engage the case in some way I'll be happy.

I have 6 consecutive years of experience in PF debate since junior year in middle school. I am an active member at northeastern university debate society since fall 2018; member of Harvard debate council since 2016. I have coached public forum debate for two years since summer 2018. And I have taught both middle and high school students enrolling in international school in mainland China, including students from British Columbia Academy, Shanghai American School, Western Academy Beijing, International School of Beijing, etc.

Judging PF debate, I evaluate more on your weighing in the impacts on a particular data/ evidence you and your opponents brought up in a round. I do not like to have four people speaking at the same time when it's grand-crossfire, if that happens, I will not take notes from either side. I can flow speed but I also prefer you to speak/ pronounce everything accurately and present your contentions with concrete evidence and supportive logic.

1. I hate speakers asking "do you have evidence on that" all time. If you do challenge your opposing team for evidence on a particular argument, explain to me why evidence in this case matters.

2. If you give a road map/ speech mapping, I would not time you. You can go as specific as possible. I would prefer you use signposts in your speech because that would make it easy to follow.

3. If you compare framework, make sure why yours is superior than the opposing team's. I do not need you to refresh both frameworks for me. Same thing when you weigh impacts. I don't want you to repeat what you and your opponents said. Always make sure you explain to me why yours is better in order to win my ballot.

4. I would not apply what you mean unless you mentioned the technical terms. For example, if your opposing team DROPPED an argument, make sure you mention it.

Shortcuts:

speed √

weighing √

summary and final focus √

check cards √

time for yourself/ opponents √

exceed time for >10s √

shouting in crossfire X

cutting speeches ("no no no"/ "answer my question please"/ "let me..."/ "what I was saying...") X

speak too loud/ low X

disrespect X

personal attack [ABSOLUTELY] X

I started debate judging in 2020.

I am a parent judge without much experience, so please make it as easy for me as possible. Explain why your points or arguments make sense, don't just push evidence in my face. Cards do not replace logic, they should support it. Please weigh through the entire debate and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Explain why your impacts carry through and why they matter.

As mentioned above, I do not have a lot of experience so please signpost each speech and speak clearly and comprehensibly (I will let you know if you are speaking too fast). Make sure your speeches have structure (you can roadmap them out of time if you want) -- it makes everything much easier to follow.

Finally, keep the debate civil. I will give lower speaker points to people who insult or demean their opponents. These tournaments are for fun, so I do not want anyone being personally attacked.

i would appreciate a somewhat slower pace of speech so i could fully absorb all the material you have worked hard preparing, thank you and good luck!

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

Former PFer for Milton High School in GA, debate Parli for Dartmouth, would call myself generally flow judge:

1. 1st summary does not need to extend defense ever, though if 2nd rebuttal spends a sizeable amount of time on defense it may dock you in the round. NOTE: For 3 minute summaries I expect first summary to cover defense as well, especially turns, if turns are not extended then I will not extend them in final

2. Please weigh. If you make me weigh for you, you may not like how I evaluate arguments, so don't leave it up to me. Also, please warrant/explain your weighing analysis. If I have two different weighing mechanisms given to me without explanation as to why I should choose one over the other, I will still be just as clueless as to how I should evaluate the round.

3. Please signpost. Be clear about where you are on the flow, I do not want to waste time finding my place.

4. Warranting is extremely important. I value a strong link chain with good flow of logic over random impacts that don't seem to connect, don't expect me to buy impacts that I have no idea how you got there. If the link chain is good, chances are the impact will be very strong. Furthermore, I love to hear attacks at the link level more than the impact level. Obviously, both are very important but keep in mind attacking an argument's logic is a great way to make me value it much less on the flow.

5. Be generally civil (I don't mind passion during cx just no shouting match plz), nothing rude/offensive, have fun

If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to contact me before or after round through cell (678-925-8683) or email (aditya.a.choudhari.22@dartmouth.edu).

I am a relatively flow judge. I value weighing, and extension of case that you want to be judged off of. I expect most delinks or turns to be addressed.

I'm a current undergraduate student at Columbia University and I did PF debate all throughout high school. You can talk briskly, but please speak clearly so that I can understand you. I value summary and final focus the most in my final decision, but I will not count any arguments that haven't been extended from case/rebuttal. Please please weigh––it is very important factor in my decision.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

Don't fret if you're looking at this in the 5 minutes before your round starts, I'll be quick. I have one paragraph per event, and you can be on your way. There's a longer paradigm at the bottom if you have the time.

Congress: I look for the three C's: clarity, concision, and clash. That's how I will judge everything about your performance. Giving a speech? Talk clearly, practice word economy, and give effective rebuttals to previous speakers (if applicable, speeches in the first few cycles can absolutely be mostly constructive). Asking a question? As I'm sure the PO will remind you, try to keep questions short and to the point. Also, be relevant with your questions, please. Answering a question? Keep it short, to the point, clear, and reasonable.

LD: If you're from Arizona, you might recognize me as a policy debater. In fact, I was an LD debater before that. So I am somewhat well-versed in many of the terms. Traditional, progressive, it's all fine with me. However, please be fair to your opponent. Don't weasel your way out of defining utilitarianism (based on a true story). Don't be rude during CX, though cutting a rambling answer off is fine. If you're going for a more progressive argument (especially a K aff or a theory shell), be sure to make your warrants very clear. Assuming this is an in-person round, I can handle speed. Also, I flow tags, not cards, so please don't signpost by just naming the card. Extend the warrants, not the cards (so, for instance, you can't just say "extend Rosenstein 14" unless you also explain what Rosenstein said that's worth extending). Apart from that, just ask any clarifying questions you may have. If you don't have clarification questions, ask me about the defining utilitarianism story. Even if it's pointless, it's a signal to me that you read this.

PF: Public Forum is supposed to be the layman's debate. Not that anybody can compete well, but that any bystander should be able to understand what is happening. To that end, I expect a traditional debate. No plans, no counterplans, no kritiks, and no theory (don't give me a reason to break this rule and give your opponent no out besides one of these arguments). Besides that, just make sure you're warranting every argument and to have fun.

Policy: If you're from Arizona, you might remember debating against me, in which case you will have a good idea of how I like to view policy rounds. If not, don't worry. I can handle speed (although that is not the case for online debate), and will entertain pretty much any warranted argument. If you're going for a K (and especially a K aff), please explain the links and the role of the ballot clearly, otherwise I will default to a traditional plan v squo or plan v counterplan. Also, no Baudrillard. Just, don't. Please also be fair to your opponent. Don't weasel your way out of defining important and uncontroversial terms like "utilitarianism" (based on a true story). Don't be rude during CX, though cutting a rambling answer off is fine. I don't flow the names of cards, so be sure to signpost and extend arguments, not card names. Tell me what Rosenstein 14 says and why it's important, or the extension is incomplete. Apart from that, just ask any clarifying questions you may have. If you don't have any clarifying questions, ask about the defining utilitarianism story. It'll just be a signal to me that you read this.

Speech: Why are you looking here? Just do your thing! I'm sure it'll be great.

Debaters, read from here on out if you aren't in a rush. It goes into greater detail on pretty much everything.

Speed: As long as you clearly enunciate, speed is not an issue, though PF should probably be slower than LD or Policy. There's a reason the most popular rap songs aren't mumble rap. This rule does not hold true when online, as clarity is limited by bandwidth. If your video is skipping, spreading will earn you no points. I will not dock speaker points for a bandwidth issue, but I will dock speaker points for generally being unclear when you talk.

Traditional arguments: Every argument requires a warrant and an impact. If they are not both present, the argument holds no weight. But if your opponent doesn't call it out, I'm probably not going to catch it. So call out when your opponent doesn't have a warrant or an impact. This is really simple, and is applicable across all debate styles. I guess this means tech > truth, but truth is important. So, it's really TECH |-----------X------------------| TRUTH. On that note, don't bring up new arguments in the last speech. That's a great way for me to just not flow it. So when you ask me about it afterwards, I'll look at my flow and it won't be there.

Weighing: "Weighing isn't important," said no one ever. Weigh. Please weigh. If you don't weigh impacts, I don't know how to judge and I can't vote for you. If nobody weighs, everybody's speaker points are automatically terrible. Weighing in the NR, 1AR, Neg block, and summary must be extended through the round for me to consider it.

Kritiks: PFers should skip this section. I've dabbled in some odd kritiks in my time, so I am totally on board with almost any home-brew kritik you throw at me. That being said, please explain any kritik you run. You need to clearly spell out the links, the impacts and the alt. Say it with me now, "A kritik without an alt is a nonunique disad!" If your opponent runs a kritik without an alt, that's a completely valid argument. But onto the substantive stuff.

Baudrillard |--------------------------X| Anyone else (No. Just, no)

PoMo |------------------------X-| Literally anyone else (PoMo Ks can't just pretend to have an argument)

Philosophy |---------------X------------------| Identity (I will vote for both, but you need to justify why the ROTB matters)

Author |----------------X-----| Argument (Warrants are important, authors are not)

Your author's qualifications can't help you in a round, unless you're citing data. If you're just using an author's warrant, that's completely fine. It's your warrant now, you have to defend it. You can't just say "but the card says." You need to justify why the card is right. Your author's qualifications can't do that for you. However, if you happen to be citing David Duke to justify some new restrictive immigration policy, your opponent would be right to call that out and get the card dropped from the round. Basically, your author almost never matters, but watch out for when it does.

Topicality: Skip this if you're in PF. In LD, topicality violations should be pretty obvious to count, especially since the aff is likely arguing for the resolution, not for a specific plan. But, if you're arguing topicality, let me know why it matters. With no impact, your shell means nothing. In Policy, you will be running them more often. Be sure to clearly explain what every violation is and why all of them matter. It's a lot easier to win on topicality with multiple independent links.

Theory: PFers should also skip this. In both LD and Policy, theory is an a priori argument. If you prove the theory shell true, you win. That being said, you need to provide warrants on all parts of the theory shell. That means your interpretations, violations, standards, and voters all need warrants. When it comes to theory, I need to adjust a slider.

TECH |----X--------------| TRUTH (Theory is inherently subjective, and there is no perfect truth. Define it for me)

Plans: In PF, you will be punished in speaks for running a plan, even if you win the round. In LD, plans can be specific, but I will give the neg a lot more leeway when it comes to analytical replies and theory/topicality arguments. In Policy, plans are the norm. If you're not reading a plan, you have some explaining to do, but you already knew that when you wrote the case.

Counterplans: If you run this in PF, please quietly put a rubber band on your wrist, stretch it, and let it slap you. If you run this without a plan on the pro, do it twice. In LD, be sure that your counterplan also abides by your position on the resolution, and that you can effectively weigh the net benefits of your counterplan against the impacts of the affirmative plan. If it doesn't do both, I won't automatically vote against you, but I won't enjoy voting for you. In Policy, just make sure you have your net benefits clearly laid out with warrants. I need a unique reason to vote for the counterplan. The aff plan must be better than the squo, but the neg counterplan must be better than the aff plan. You can convince me either way on conditionality, I really don't lean one way or the other.

Tricks: Please don't. If you don't immediately know exactly what I'm talking about, this probably doesn't apply to you, so you don't need to worry about it. If you do immediately know what I'm talking about, then you know more about it than me, which means I probably really won't like what you're doing. You're likely going to get really low speaks.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Hello.

I debated at Bronx Science from 1978-1982. After high school, I debated briefly in college, joined the Navy after graduation, and served for 20 years including a tour on the USS ENTERPRISE. Yes, I was Scotty on the ENTERPRISE. I retired from the Navy in 2007 while I was serving with NATO in Iraq and stayed for another 3 years. I am still with NATO though living and working in the more bucolic environs of Luxembourg.

My paradigm:

Arguments

1. I will accept any argument provided you provide the evidence to support it.

2. Where there are conflicting arguments, I expect the debaters to address what criteria should be used in making a decision.

3. I will listen to arguments concerning theory but have not found them to be persuasive generally in deciding a round.

Comport

1. I expect debaters to treat each other (includes both the opponent and one's partner) with courtesy and respect.

2. Number 1 extends to judges as well. Please signpost and pay attention to the judge. Sometimes this will lead you to slowing down or perhaps do a better job signposting.

3. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, we have a problem.

Et cetera

If there is time, I don't object to providing comments.

You can run anything, more esoteric the better.

Do not be toxic. Approach the round honestly and amicably.

Card + clear warranting > Warrant > Just a card

Fine with speed.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

I am a parent lay judge, and I have judged five tournaments. I did not have experience participating in debate prior to being a judge. I would appreciate slower speech in order to allow me to make note of your contentions and evidence. I request that debaters time themselves.

I've done APDA (American Parliamentary) and BP (British Parliamentary) for 3 years at Northeastern University. I have a small but not insignificant amount of PF judging experience.

I prefer well-made explanations over evidence. Arguments about quality of studies/statistics are far less compelling to me than arguments about people and incentives.

I will reward creative arguments, as long as they are not frivolous

Do weighing. This requires more than just telling me you're doing weighing. If you'd like me to explain more, feel free to ask

Tell me what to vote on and why. Emphasis on the why.

I really don't care which speeches which arguments are in, so I very likely won't consider arguments about responses/other arguments being too late. That being said, it is often in your best interest to include your best argumentation in the earlier speeches.

Be a good person.

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my second year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, wouldmuch preferyou to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism !

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- On evidence : I'll be a part of email chains in rounds. Please share it with nylacrayton@gmail.com. I might not read every piece of evidence in full, but if you tell me to read something during, or after, the round I will.

- Speech times - I will continue to flow your speech up until ~10 seconds after your time is up. I will stop listening and stop flowing if you continue beyond that time.

• Prep - I keep track of prep in the round, and I am always a bit annoyed when you go over that time. If you prep for more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing : please finish before the round starts.

Anyways... if you have any more questions, either ask me before the round or shoot an email to nylacrayton@gmail.com !

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally tech-y. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

-------------

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth.

I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.

So please, no jargon.

Hello debaters,

My name is Ana Maria. My daughter (Nicole Rodriguez from Ransom GR) has done PF for 4 years, and I've judged at a few tournaments. Please speak clearly, be respectful during the round, and do not introduce new arguments in final focus. I will take my personal opinions out of the debate and do my best to flow. I know you all work hard and want to do well.

Best of luck!

Ana Maria Czachor

(For the email chain: anamariaczachor@yahoo.com)

I debated throughout high school for Campbell Hall and I worked this summer at the Public Forum Academy (https://www.publicforumacademy.com/). I'm now a sophomore at Vanderbilt University woohoo. This paradigm is a slightly modified version of Sandeep Shankars lol!

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but if the response comes in second summary, a more well-explained response would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final focus consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

PLEASE don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well. With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

Even though as a debater I went fairly fast, I really don't like crazy speed. If you have a real need for speed, just make sure it's clear. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

I will never read a speech doc in public forum. If I couldn't understand what you were saying, that's on you

Tech vs Truth:

I'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Miscellaneous:

I vote for the status quo on presumption

I will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

I am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me. I've had more then a few teams ignore this and I'm telling you, it really didn't serve them well. I'll try my best but that's all I can do.

Speaks - they'll be based on your ability to convince me rhetorically, not necessarily on your strategy. This is still Public Forum Debate, it's the name of the game. Have respect for the game hehehe

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding.

please ask any questions you may have before the round! wooohoo have fun

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Hello! I am a parent of a second year Newton South Debater. This is my third tournament judging. I will come into every round a clean slate, and I will take notes, but I don't know how to "flow".

Some thinks I like:

A slow, understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

If you tell a story. One or two big ideas for me is really persuasive. Explain in depth why your arguments are correct (my son says this is called warranting)

Weighing! I don't understand the buzzwords, but I would also like to know in a comparative worlds analysis why your world is preferable.

Be Nice! Humor is appreciated, but don't be disrespectful.

Fist Bumps!
Some things I don't like:

Speed (see above)

Rudeness
Off-case arguments (please no)

Buzzwords

Going for everything - explain why your best argument wins you the round

At the end of the day, debate is about fun ~ so please have fun! Also let me know if I can make the round more accessible to you!

Background

My name is Leslie De La Cruz Martinez. I’m a first-year student majoring in Philosophy, Politics, Law & Economics (PPLE) at IE University. I debated Public Forum for four years at New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic. I've also coached for international and national debate tournaments. As a college student, I now debate British Parliamentary style, participate actively in MUNs and write weekly in The Stork newspaper.

FYI Before the Round

I value intelligence, confidence, proper body language, and a good tone in a debater. Show me your logical and analytical skills, and don't try to play it smart by altering evidence. I know the topic by heart, every round is your opportunity to demonstrate how your arguments connect validly to the resolution. I flow all speeches during the round, except crossfires, however, I do take them into account, and if you do make a fire point, I'll write it down. Lastly, be on time!

During the Round

I. I'll be taking your time, but please do so as well.

II. Make eye contact, at least every 20-45 seconds. Don’t just read your case, show me you know what you are talking about. Show me your strengthens and proper strategies through linking, weighing, and extending.

III. Road Maps are helpful.

IV. Impact Calculus (Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Timeframe, Reversibility) and Tag Lines are a MUST.

V. Be respectful during all crossfires and remain calm. Allow for both sides to make and answer questions. In the grand cross, all debaters should participate.

VI. Fast speed and a loud tone preferred. Clearness is nonnegotiable. Make sure you slow down and emphasize when providing any type of evidence (statistics, dates, reports, reliable/credible sources) or examples. If you speak slowly, make sure your volume is appropriate.

VII. It's good to present a Framework. If you don’t have one I’ll focus on the present standards during the around and the evidence presented in support of every argument. In the case, that you don't have one and the opposing team does, you must communicate your stand and/or suggest a framework. If you do have one, mention its significance throughout your speeches and demonstrate how it is fair for both teams in the round.

VIII. Any argument you present must be supported with relevant and credible evidence. I don't judge based on my beliefs or opinions, I'll stick to the arguments presented and the clash of ideas during the debate. It is crucial to counter the opposing team's contentions and premises.

IX. If you have a unique argument, don’t be afraid to run it, show me everything you’ve got. Any argument you presented that is not counterargued during the round, defended and well-presented won't be considered.

X. Have your evidence at hand, so the round can run smoothly and quickly. EVERYTHING you say during your speech (example: qualitative or quantitative data, important dates, or relevant examples) must be backed up by evidence. The evidence must be adequately warranted. Likewise, if the opposing team asks for evidence, I would like to see it as well.

XI. Speeches must be organized, leaving time in a speech or going over-time will affect your Speaker Points.

XII. If some of the arguments you presented were dropped, that's okay. Focus on boiling down your arguments and concisely explaining why and how you won the round.

XIII. Feel free to use any form of refutation and weighing you'd like. Reiterate the opposing team's arguments flaws and fallacies.

XIV. New arguments presented in summary or final focus won't be taken into account. Also, if standing arguments are not mentioned in summary nor final focus, I'll consider them dropped.

XV. Any doubts (questions) or attacks directed to your case by the opposing team must be responded with a defense. If you fail to do so and don't recover from it, you'll risk losing that argument.

XVI. Speaker Points:

30 - Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field. (A++)

29 - Your performance is substantially better than average. (A/A-)

28 - Your performance is above average. (B/B+)

27 - Your performance is approximately average. (B-)

26 - Your performance is below average.

25 - Your performance is substantially below average.

24 - Rude or inappropriate behavior, total lack of preparation.

Last, but not least important, be respectful (no discrimination, no insults), be professional, and be nice!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate on coming to me before the round starts I'll be more than happy to help. Best of Luck!

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who prefers clear and fully extended arguments. Some key things to avoid in round:

1. Speaking Fast (if I cannot hear/flow your argument I wont consider it)

2. Summary can be largely line-by-line but quality over quantity-be clear on your contentions

3. WARRANTING: If a card is that important within the round, you should be extending it clearly through summary and tell me WHY

4. WEIGHING: Summary and Final Focus however should have clear weighing (Why should I prioritize your impacts)

5. Keep track of time for both yourself and your opponents (I will not be timing you guys)

If you have any other specific questions please feel free to ask me before round. I will provide feedback via ballot comments. All the best!

Paradigm

“A thought well conceived will be enunciated clearly, and the words to say it will thence flow easily” (Nicolas Boileau, 1636-1711)

In other words, things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever you want me to comprehend and vote on needs to be clearly articulated.

I will flow the round and will vote per the flow. It is in my view your responsibility to make yourself understood. It is your responsibility to explain your argument in an intelligible way.

You are at liberty to set the criteria by which you will be judged. Please do so and then explain why and how you think you won according to these criteria and why your opponent lost and why their criteria did not produce a winning outcome for them.

The goal of any debater should be to persuade the judge, that they conveyed their argument in a way that was more logical than their opponent, and that they effectively poked holes in the opponents logic.

I’m truly equally open to everything. I judge on the capacity to present and defend ones argument. The debate room is in my view totally disconnected from the world since anything argued here will have absolutely no implication and since debaters were imposed the side of the case to defend.

Please feel free to ask any questions before the round!

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

PF

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

I want to hear clear impacts in summary and final focus with a strong explanation for why you have won the round. Make your logical links clear and don't assume that I'm familiar with your cards or evidence. Extend your most important arguments, and tell me how I should weigh the round. The quality of your rhetoric is more important than the sheer amount of information you can throw at me. Don't rely too much on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments, and if your opponents can't understand you, we can't have an exciting debate. I don't flow cross, and I will not make my decision based on anything new presented in final focus.

I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!

Please speak at a pace that is not difficult to follow.

When possible, offer brief outline of argument before starting.

I am a parent judge and a lay judge. Please keep your speaking speed reasonable and be clear.

Hello! I am a parent judge.

A few things:

1. Speak slowly, please. If I'm not able to understand you - then it is on you, not on me. If the other team tells you to speak slower, it is your job to speak slower. I generally won't interrupt a round, however. Just make sure you're speaking at an understandable pace and you'll be fine.

2. I won't be flowing as you do, but I will vote for the team that makes the most logical argument. Don't make absurd claims without being able to give the proper evidence for them. For example, if you were to say Dora the Explorer is going to be the cause of WW3 you'd need some extensive peer reviewed academic literature to back you up there because that claim is neither common sense nor is it logical.

3. Make sure you weigh. Weighing is very important, if you don't provide framework - the default is a cost benefit analysis. If you do provide framework, you should tell me why I should prefer this over the default cost benefit analysis.

4. If you don't have cards for something, make sure that the argument you're trying to make is still logical. Evidence that has cards will defeat simple logic, though.

5. Don't be rude.

6. Please make the round entertaining - maybe a joke or two.

Good luck!

Hi! My name is Mary Kate. I debated in high school (PF) and have been a judge since 2017. Most of my judging has been in PF but I have also judged some speech events as well as LD and Policy. I am now a college student at Temple U, studying bioinformatics/computer science and history.

Here are some things you should know:

-I will not judge you on what you are wearing, if your internet connection goes out, stuff like that. Everyone is doing the best they can with pandemic and other stresses right now. No worries.
-I can handle speed so long as you are clear. Since we are now unfortunately at the mercy of internet connections, that may change but I will let you know.

-Please ask me before the round starts if you would like any signals as far as timing goes, like 1 min before time is up etc. I suggest you also keep time, just in case.
-My highest priority is impacts in the round. To win, you must have a clear framework and strong evidence for both how and why the resolution is either true or false. I work in a genetics lab, so I do tend to prefer arguments with clear statistics and facts. Anything purely theoretical or hypothetical is not likely to get you a win. In addition, arguments focusing solely on the trustworthiness of the opponent’s sources instead of the resolution itself are unlikely to get you a win.

-The neg side does not necessarily need to provide alternative solutions. For example, if the resolution was “the US should enact the Medicare for all act”, neg can focus on why passing it would be harmful rather than proposing an alternative piece of legislation.

-Make sure to update your arguments if current events are relevant to the resolution. The most recent data/info is always the best bet.

-I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.
-Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you need to increase your preparation for the next debate, not that their framework is automatically wrong.

-I expect that you treat your opponents with respect. I do NOT TOLERATE any kind of rudeness, sexism, racism, homophobia, yelling, etc. Having to write to your coach would make me very sad.

If you have questions/concerns about the round or want to ask me about Temple U, feel free to email me at tuh20347@temple.edu.

Good luck with your rounds!

First off, I'm a lay judge - so lucky you! For the debates, I'll be looking for clearly presented logic and well organized arguments along with strong supporting examples referenced by teams. The clarity of your presentations will be important for me, as will the delivery of a position/rebuttal that aims to avoid a heavy use of colloquialisms (e.g. frequent use of the word 'like'). Courtesy is important and I'll be looking for teams to stick to precedented references and/or facts (instead of unsupported opinions) to support both their position and their rebuttals. Maintain cool heads, clear arguments, and composure throughout the debate. Finally, I'll be looking to make sure that teams maintain and reinforce their opening positions and major arguments from their opening cases through to their summaries. For me, the clarity of presentation for the summaries will be just as important as the opening cases. In my opinion, a succinct summary position supported with the most compelling evidence is equally important as the opening.

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

I think that conditionality should be a last resort; I am not sure why it has become so prevalent.

Reasonability as an alternative to competing interpretations does not make a lot of sense because I must endorse an interpretation at the end of the debate. Instead, I think reasonability is best used as a framing argument to raise the threshold for the abuse or potential abuse Negative teams must prove.

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for arguments with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Critical teams should spend time explaining arguments in front of me in practical terms without jargon. I think the pedantry in academia can easily permeate debaters' blocks and strategies. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people versed in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Background in debating and judging primarily British Parliamentary style. Preference for analysis through heuristics and reason from first principles versus citing statistics (essentially an appeal to authority). Please avoid spreading.

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am notabsolutely close to theory, but I'll usually only buy it, if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

Hello! Quick background on me, I did PF all four years of high school and now do APDA/BP with the Harvard College Debating Union.

I'm a pretty standard judge:

1) Summary/Final Focus

i. I generally will only vote off offense that is included in summary AND final focus.

ii. Turns that you want me to vote off of must be in first summary.

iii. Defensive responses for the second speaking team need to be in both summary/final focus.

2) Please WARRANT the cards you care about. Otherwise, they generally don't matter.

3) YOU MUST TERMINALIZE AND WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS! If you do not do this, it will be up to my judgment what matters most in the round. (My judgment will likely not be what you like, so PLEASE collapse and weigh your voters).

4) I am not a fan of theory unless it's clearly relevant to the round.

Hi I'm Gracie! (she/her)

Experience: 3 years of PF at Boca High and 3 years of experience in different debate events at Florida State (NPDA, BP, Civic/Social Justice, NFA LD literally once).

For Online Tournaments:

- Yes, add me to the email chain: gracea.findley@gmail.com

For PF:

TL;DR: Tech > Truth. Turns/DAs need to be responded to in second rebuttal. Final focus should mirror the summary. Default to cost/benefit analysis, but easily persuaded to filter the round through whatever framework you see fit. Speed is ok, but please don't spread. And please do not drop warrants (especially in the back half of the round!)

If anything is unclear in my paradigm, just ask me before the round!

Specific Thoughts on Debate

1) I default to tech > truth. Additionally, if you're winning a claim on the flow (technically), I'm more likely to evaluate it as true. But don't just assert things as random truths and expect me to vote on them. With this being said, I am a sucker for a good narrative. In the back-half of the round I love when teams re-explain their arguments, especially on the warrant level and use this as a basis to explain how they're winning. If you do this it helps make my decision much easier as I am not just voting on the flow but also on clear argumentation.

2) If you drop warrants, I drop you. Please don't make this mistake. I think warrants are the most important argument in the round, so I will evaluate this first. Lack of warrants assume I am all knowing and sometimes arguments that are clear to you are not clear to me, so ensuring I understand the premise of your argument extends from your ability to provide clear warrants. This means I expect analysis not only on the impact level but also on the link level. Assuming you are winning a warrant and going straight to impact weighing will make me unlikely to vote for you.

3) Second rebuttal is required to frontline all offensive arguments made against their case. This includes turns and DAs. It will make my flow a lot cleaner if you also begin to frontline defensive arguments in this speech, but it's not something that I require.

4) Anything you want me to vote off of NEEDS to be in the summary. Now that the summary is three minutes long, I expect first speaking teams to extend defense in summary. Please don't try to bring up things in final focus that were missing in summary.

5) Absent any framing in the round, I default to a cost/benefit analysis. In debates that don't touch heavily on framing, I tend to lean aff on risk of solvency. This also means I lean aff/non-squo went presented with "risk of offense" or "try-or-die" framing.

6) I don't have much experience competing in or evaluating theory rounds. I will try my best to evaluate it, but proceed with caution at your risk. For reference, here's what I think about some of the more popular theory arguments being read in PF.

a.) "Give us 30s" - Nope. Please, please, please don't read this in front of me. If you want a 30, follow my paradigm.

b.) Disclosure - Disclosure is good for debate, regardless of big or small school and especially for online tournaments.

7) I will not time you. Please keep track of your own time for both speeches and prep.

8) K's without policy alternatives are ok as the negative (b/c negative fiat isn't really a thing in PF), but I'm not a huge fan of non-topical affirmatives. My background is not in critical literature, so please make sure your arguments are very well explained in the back-half of the round.

9) If you are going to read an overview, there needs to be some sort of "turns case" explanation clearly flagged on the flow. I am not a fan of disads with new impacts out of the rebuttal.

10) I will call for evidence if I think it's misconstrued or if a team tells me to. I have no preference whether you give me a PDF/webpage or a cut card.

11) Don't spread, even if you offer to send a doc. I competed on the national circuit in PF though, so I can follow if you speak more quickly than conversational rate but please at least slow down for author names and dates.

For Speaker Points:

1) If author names are either dropped or not read, I will lower speaker points. Author names are the bare minimum - you should also be reading dates.

2) Weighing and really any sort of contextualization is the easiest way to boost your speaks. This is more than just claims like "we win on scope." As stated above, warrants are crucial to all argumentation; in addition to giving me a reason to prefer your analysis over anything your opponents bring up.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

I am a parent judge. I like to try to understand the points being made, so please speak normally (not fast).

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

Weigh or else I will be sad :(

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Sreenivas Gannavaram

School affiliation: Montgomery Blair High School

I have been judging PF debates for 3 years. I am a scientist by profession. I am comfortable with a moderate speed of delivery as long as it is clear and on point. Summary speeches should lay out the big picture and emphasize strong links and responses. I look for full and complete response to the relevant arguments that remain standing. Extend arguments and evidence you deem necessary to win the round. I do not evaluate any kind of progressive debate. I flow extensively throughout the round. For me. argument takes precedence over style. To win an argument in the round, debaters should extend their arguments clearly in summary and final focus. The side with clear weighing will win the round. I do not vote for arguments newly raised after second summary.

Seven Lakes High School '20 | UT Austin '24

Contact: angelagao@utexas.edu or message me on facebook

I did PF for 4 years in high school on the local (TFA) and national circuit.

(the rest of my paradigm is copied from my partner Aditya's paradigm)

PF:

· Tech > Truth. I’m a standard flow judge and will evaluate anything as long as it’s not blatantly offensive, homophobic, racist, etc.

· Only run theory as a legit checkback for abuse. Don’t make it frivolous or read it against inexperienced debaters as an easy win or I’ll drop your speaks. Debate is about inclusion first.

· Speed is fine as long as it’s clear. If you’re going to spread, send me a speech doc.

Some things I think are really important :

1. Please give a roadmap and signpost

2. Extend every part of an argument and extensions must be in each speech. Don’t just tell me extend “x card,” actually tell me what the card says.

3. First summary only has to extend defense if it’s responded to in second rebuttal.

4. Second rebuttal must respond to offensive arguments, otherwise they’re drops.

5. Weighing = good. The earlier, the better. I won’t evaluate new weighing after summaries.

6. Offensive overviews/disads are fine as long as they’re read before summary

7. Arguments in CX only matter if brought up in the following speech.

8. I’ll give speaker points based on strategy, but I’ll give good speaks as long as everything is entertaining, civil, and not stupid. Don’t be rude or I’ll drop you and your speaks. Also please don’t try to out yell each other in CX or I’ll be annoyed.

9. Paraphrasing is fine. Don’t misconstrue evidence please. If you want me to look at a specific piece of evidence – tell me, otherwise I probably won’t call for anything. Call your opponents out on misconstruing, falsifying, or lying. I’ll drop you if your evidence ethics are trash.

10. In the absence of offense, I presume neg unless you read warrants for a different form of presumption.

11. If you read framing, read warrants for it.

12. ff should parallel summary.

Feel free to email me after round if you have questions.

I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.

Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.

I will not disclose in prelims.

Please do the timing yourselves.

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

I am a parent from Newton South, where both my kids have been active PF debaters. I have judged 50+ rounds across 12+ tournaments. I will take notes on your arguments but am not a "flow" judge. Please speak clearly, give warranting and weigh your arguments/impact relative to your opponents. I do not look favorably on teams that are rude to their opponents, or misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

I am a recent graduate of Brown University and was an active member of the Brown Debating Union for all four years of college, including being ranked as 8th team in the league my senior year. I do not have a high school debate background, so keep the theory reasonable / to a minimum. I will write as fast as I can, but if you spread too much I may not be able to understand you.

I am a new lay judge, this is my first time.

I did PF for three years in high school, and have a couple years of judging experience as well.

Things I like: 1) Framework debate; 2) Linking to your impacts. Don't just throw out numbers/conclusions without explaining how you can access them; 3) Signposting; 4) Numbered responses in rebuttal; 5) Turns; 6) Weighing and big picture analysis in Summary and FF. I like when teams can clearly explain why their impacts should outweigh their opponents' impacts, especially when those impacts are quantified differently (ex: lives vs. economics).

Things I don't like: 1) Sketchy or misconstrued evidence; 2) Tenuous links to impacts; 3) When teams bring up arguments in FF that they didn't push in Summary.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

I debated PF for 4 years at American Heritage, Plantation and graduated in 2018, I have not judged since graduating but I will be able to follow you pretty well

- Please sign post as you go, it makes it easier for all of us :)

- If 2nd rebuttal frontlines, 1st summary must provide defense or it is dropped

- If you’re second speak you must frontline in rebuttal, NOT summary, can't stress this enough

- No need to extend defense past rebuttal if it is not frontlined, but DO extend offense through summary and FF (including any turns)

- Cross doesn't go on my flow, thus I don't evaluate it. If something important happens during cross bring it up in a speech so I can throw it on the flow

- If you make me laugh or crack a joke ill probably toss u a 30

- If you want me to evaluate something make sure it is in BOTH the summary and FF, I simply will not evaluate something you try and pull from constructive to FF

- Don't just extend a card name/author, give me a brief summary of what it says during any speech after constructive (don't say extend Smith, say extend Smith who tells you xyz)

- Extending arguments includes the warrants, if you drop the warrants in all likelihood you've dropped the subsequent impact, and I'm not evaluating it

- Make sure you weigh, I do not like interfering and if you do not weigh I'll usually have to in order to make a decision

- I will only call for evidence if it is contested/someone tells me to

- Try and keep track of your opponent's prep time, if you want me to please tell me explicitly before the round otherwise I think you guys can handle it

- Don't be rude to your opponents

LMK before the round if u have any questions, I'd be happy to answer or clarify some things

I mostly did Extemp is HS, but I have some experience in LD. I don't have a preference how you choose to give your speeches (go fast if you *have* to) as long as I can hear each word you say.

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

Don't spread. 10 second grace period for going over time otherwise I stop listening/writing. Cross should be used to ask questions that you then reference in speech not further argumentation.

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Hello!

A little background about me... I was a Public Forum Debate Coach until recently, and was a PF debater myself.

On to preferences..

If you present an argument/statistic, make sure you have evidence to back it up. Any evidence that is asked I will also ask to see. If there is some information that seems wrong to me, or manipulated, I will ask for it and if it turns out to be foul play you will automatically lose the round. Make sure all evidence is warranted. I weigh numbers more than I do words. Also, I discourage link chains. (Having to prove 3+ links to get to your impact.)

Clear and fast-paced speeches are my preference. However do not spread, I will not flow.

During crossfires, I like civil interactions between teams. Though please keep it interesting. Be sassy and clever, but not abusive. Make me laugh and I'll give you 2 extra speaker points. Also in Grand-cross, both partners should speak. Everyone should be taking their own time and staying within the speaking times.

If an argument or impact is not mentioned in Summary I consider it dropped. Period. If it is mentioned in summary but not carried through to final focus, i also consider it dropped. No new arguments will be accepted after rebuttal.

Frameworks are a must. If you don't do Framework weighing/comparisons in rebuttal and/or summary adequately i will choose my own. Make sure your framework is clear to me. Impact calculus(i.e. probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, impact short circuiting, reversibility, etc.) is ESSENTIAL in summary and final focus. Tell me what you win and why you win it, and why you win it better than the opposing team does.

USE TAGLINES, in every speech. No exception. Make sure your speeches are organized.

I love a good argument/impact turn, pointing out non-uniqueness, slick stuff like that.

Do NOT leave time in a speech. Do NOT go over your time. I will keep your time; however, please do so as well. If you keep talking past your time and do not stop when I ask you to, I will be decreasing your speaker points significantly.

That's about it, if you have any questions or concerns I'll be happy to briefly answer them before the round begins.

Most importantly, have fun!

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

i did varsity PF + LD in high school, so i'll be keeping a pretty thorough flow of all the clashes in the round, and that's how i'll be voting

the most important thing for me is the arguments; the strongest arguments will win the round

also it'll be super obvious if you are twisting your opponents words or not engaging in good faith with the debate, neither of which is persuasive. genuinely show me why your arguments + responses are stronger

in your final speech, crystallize for me the key arguments and tell me why your side won on those

Flow judge, competed in PF for 3 years. Not a fan of theory arguments.

1. Speak at medium speed. I am a novice judge so you know the game and I don't.

2. Keep it simple, be confident and be organized in your approach

3. Evidence should be current/relevant and quality trumps quantity.

4. I will be judging you on who educated me using evidence-based arguments.

5. Presentation style is important.

6. Enjoy being in the game!

I'm a current law student but am a former high school debate competitor and collegiate speech competitor. I have the greatest amount of coaching and judging in experience in LD but have judged PF for the last five years.

I keep a detailed flow of the round and ask that warrants be extended on key arguments you extend throughout the debate.

Please be respectful in crossfire/cx.

I find rounds work best when debaters also time themselves and cross time their opponents.

In order to reduce the likelihood of any technical issues, I ask that you take necessary precautions (e.g. quitting programs not needed on your computer, testing your WiFi connection, etc.).

Please feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round starts so we begin on time. Thank you, and good luck!

I am a lay judge and have judged numerous state (MA) and national tournaments, both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality/integrity of arguments/data over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating or on the fine points of Lincoln Douglas debate technique. That said, I will listen to you very intently, take a lot of notes, and do my very best to render a fair and balanced decision.

I am not a fan of meme cases and not experienced enough to fairly judge tech cases. I may ask you to slow down if you speak too quickly. I expect you to keep your own time.

I will share critical comments if I have any, which may not be always. I will take careful notes throughout, disclose and provide an RFD after submitting the ballot.

Above all else - have fun and good luck!

I am a parent judge aligned with Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for several years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging mainly Public Forum, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals. Parliamentary Debate is a new format for me.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. For PF, off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

I graduated 2020 from hawken. debated four years of pf, 2 on nat circuit and did fairly well.

Also email chain: grantgriffin2025@u.northwestern.edu (I took a gap year)

I had a rly long paradigm last year and got rid of it but if you remember from last year its still probably all applicable.  I can flow fast-ish and am generally tech, but like, do good tech debate. Just reading 70 one card turns is lame. Id prefer if people read arguments in rebuttal and case with multiple warrants and multiple cards rather than more blippy one card responses and turns. I dont love theory because I dont understand it super well. Please weigh, please read warranted arguments, please do actual analysis, please use your brain instead of just mindlessly reading cards, please listen to what the other team is actually saying instead of what you think they are saying. Also I really like when people talk about the implications of certain responses on other arguments in the round because I think that type of analysis is difficult and shows the difference between people who just read their teams prep and people who actually understand debate rounds. ie if you say something smart and Im like 'wow i havent heard that in literally every other round ive judged' ill be happy.

Hi, make funny jokes = boosted speaks

I was a debater and public speaker from an extremely young age through to the end of university. I have debated most styles including those outside of North America and have experience as a coach and running debate and public speaking programs.

I prioritize the persuasiveness and clarity of argumentation, this should be grounded in the quality and focus behind your case. It is key that the team establishes the superiority of their arguments under the conditions they have set out. Try your hardest not to get bogged down in smaller issues and tangents, stick to the main clashes and make it clear that you win them in your summary and final focus.

I try to be as objective as possible and not credit missing argumentation so comprehensiveness and making logical links is important. Speed is not an issue but if an argument isn't clear it wasn't made, so make sure to enunciate and breathe.

I am a parent judge and I have judged on national circuit for four years.

General Preferences

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponents.

Please do NOT spread. Keeping the word count less than 180 words per minute would be great.

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Roadmaps are helpful as well.

Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.

Hi! I am a parent judge who has been judging Public Forum debate for the last few years. Don’t speak too fast - everything else is fine. Best of luck!

I like well explained and clear warrants

I equally weigh warrants over evidence. However, do provide and counter the evidence to support the warrants.

Please do not use complicated debate jargon (ex. we outweigh on pre-req, magnitude, and scope)

I generally think that public speaking is a huge part of the debate

I believe delivery with a clear and persuasive articulation is equally important. Do not speak too fast to add unnecessary words.

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

Hello!

Clarity, and strength of argumentation are my two judging criteria.

Remember, this is not a fight; it's a debate!

All the best,
Anuveer Guraya

I'm a former High School debater (Policy debate), now parent of of a PF debater. I look for clear, logical arguments and good 'debating' in rounds. I can handle speed, but not at the expense of clarity and sound reasoning. I flow the debate (training from my Policy days!) and will look at my flow as I weigh the round, but also encourage debaters to guide me on weighing during the round. I follow crossfire exchanges, but if anything comes up during crossfire that debaters believe of note for the round, I'll look to debaters to bring it into the formal speeches in the round for it to factor into my decision making.

Be respectful during the crossfire.

No preferred speaking style.

Try to send evidence asked for during crossfire in the chat after crossfire/during prep time, let's not waste time searching for cards during questions.

Provide trigger warnings for topics your fellow debaters may find sensitive.

If you're worried about time mid-sentence just complete your thought, I will stop you when I have to.

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Preferences:

I noticed that most teams are prepared very well. I am looking for teams who can provide solid evidence to support their statement, and defend/offend logically. I also pay attention to and weigh the facts/evidences that may play key factors in PRO or CON. Please speak slower if you think the presented facts/evidences are critical to support your statement, since that may help you to gain a point.

Experience:

a new parent judge with 5~6 tournaments' judging experience only.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging PF for the past 3 years. I debated LD in high school many years ago. I prefer students to speak at a reasonable pace and not race through their individual speeches. I expect all students to respect their opponents and not make derisive remarks about arguments. When you ask a question allow your opponent to respond. Obviously, I prefer when arguments are addressed at least at some level rather than just ignored. I am often more persuaded by the logic of an argument rather than just counting pieces of evidence.

Update for Harvard 2021

General background: I debated for 4 years at Paideia, and 4 years at UChicago. I have coached policy debate for 4 years, Parliamentary debate for 2, and have been fairly involved in the debate circuit more broadly for the last 8 years. I do not know the exact argument by argument minutia of the topics but I will give a quick rundown on argument types and how I view debate.

Policy Paradigm:

First, debate is a game. That does not mean I will vote neg on T, it just means that some of the paradigms of the game inform how I view the activity. I have a ton of experience with K arguments and love that debate. If you demonstrate why your version of the game is important I will evaluate it against what the neg says.

Stock arguments: I love the politics disad, almost all types of policy K's (think security, anthro etc.) I am fine with most T arguments but my bar for voting on T is probably high. You have to demonstrate why the aff is abusive, not necessarily whether it is the most predictable, and giving specific examples is more important than doing hand wavy topical version of the aff stuff.

Framework: see "debate is probably a game" stuff.

Counterplan competition: please prove the abuse to me.

"I am a K debater": Love to hear it, I will vote for you if your arguments are engaging, have an impact, and have some weak ability to either solve for that impact or explain why solvency is not important. I will still evaluate your arguments against the neg though, and believe that T functions not only as a referendum on the framework of the debate, but on the arguments of the neg.

PF Paradigm:

Honestly I don't have a ton of experience in PF but please just remember fundamental claim, warrant implication and you will be fine with me. I do like strong evidence!

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.

- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.

- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.

- Cx is binding.

- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4

Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents

I am a flow judge and will judge strictly on what is argued in the round. I prefer to be told how and why to vote. I want arguments to be made with sound logic and reason. If your evidence is better or should carry more weight, explain to me why that is and make sure I understand

I do not like counter plans outside of a policy debate, so I believe teams should stick to debating the merits of affirming or negating the resolution.

I have no trouble with debaters spreading, but I will say that over video it can be difficult to follow if audio starts to slur and it is near impossible to get the attention of a competitor if I can not understand them. If I missed something because of this, I apologize.

Be respectful and good luck to everyone

TLDR: I like when people are kind and have fun. It's cool to be smart but it's even cooler to be kind. Talk to me like a human, make a compelling argument and I'll listen. I am not a robot and will not vote on some concept of the flow simply because it exists, but complex arguments (when explained well) are great to hear and impressive to observe.

email if needed for evidence stuff: cal8371953@gmail.com

I have some general expectations for round:

1.) Important stuff in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).

2.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged.

4.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses have no place in the debate community (and really any community).

5.) Progressive argumentation if accessible is cool but I haven't judged in a while and it'd be a big risk to run in front of me.

Don't forget to have fun in round and be kind! It's cool to be smart but it's even cooler to be kind.

Eric He -

Dartmouth '23

eric.he1240@gmail.com

Better than most for cp theory

Slightly neg on condo when equally debated

Kritiks are ok

Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact

Wipeout and/or spark is :(

for LD -

really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad

I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat

Offense defense risk analysis will be used

solvency is necessary

T is not a rvi

yes zero risk is a thing

please be clear

please do line by line

stop asking if i disclose speaks

also speed reading blocks at blazing speed will get you low speaker points, debating off your flow will get you good speaker points

if i have to decide another round on disclosure theory i will scream

I’m a parent judge.

I will make my decision based on flow. Please keep your delivery as clear as possible. Speaking too quickly will lower speaker points. Weigh impacts throughout the round. Keep debate jargon to a minimum. I will not flow crossfire, but I will listen, and as such keep your tone respectful of one another.

Parent judge here. Lay judge.

Speak slowly and clearly--I would prefer good presentation as well. Just be persuasive.

Signpost--It makes it easier to follow.

Logical arguments--these make a lot more sense than a big card dump, and I'm more likely to understand it.

Weigh--makes it clear to me who's winning

Don't be rude or offensive.

Please speak clearly. Speaking too fast may inhibit my ability to understand what you are saying, especially if you start mumbling (which sometimes happens when you try to speak too fast).

I value logical reasoning with relevant supporting evidence in an organized structure. Signposting is appreciated.

I do not flow cross-ex, so if you bring up a key point during cross-ex, please restate in your summary or final focus or I will disregard.

And please be respectful to each other.

Good luck!

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

I am a parent judge.  I am a traditional style judge.  Pretend you are trying to argue this case in front of your non speech/debate teachers. Your case needs to make sense and be logical... no jargon.    

Speed....I can handle a little speed but if you are going so fast that you are tripping over your words... I am not understanding you.  I have NEVER heard or read your case so if you cannot say it fast enough I cannot listen to it.  If you have an important point to make... go slower! Make sure I hear it.

I like voter issues... make sure to provide a concise summary and voter issues in your last speech.  

My thoughts on debate.  It is a fantastic skill to have that will serve you well.  Talker faster than your audience can listen , using words they don't understand, constantly looking down at your computer, and being rude and condescending to your competitor will not typically treat you well in life.  Debate should be teaching and making you use skills that will serve you well long after tournaments are over.  

Our state doesn't do oral critiques or disclose at the end of the debate.  I will be following this same protocol.   

Be prepared, be articulate, be persuasive, be civil.  

I am a lay judge and I have a daughter who is in varsity right now.

How I judge:

- You must convince me based on fact in order to make me vote for you. I need to hear evidence, statistics, numbers, etc.

- If your opponent's do not question you, I will not question you. It is your opponents' job to point out your errors. (Unless you are trying to say something that is just obviously not true).

- Make sure you sound and look confident, presentation makes a difference.

- DO NOT BE RUDE to your opponents that is one of my biggest pet peeves during a round

Things to keep in mind:

- I am a parent

- Don't use too much debate terminology (I won't understand what you are doing)

- I don't like theory (please DO NOT read theory, stay on topic)

- Don't read too fast, if I can't understand you, I won't vote for you

Speaker points:

- I don't give 30s very often

- I usually don't go under 26

I prefer teams email me their speech document to amyhu881@gmail.com before the round starts. Please do so asap as it takes a while for the email to arrive and sometimes the first email fail to reach me. It is Ok that you don't send me your speech doc but it will help me to understand your round.

Please time yourself. I wont keep track of the crossfires. Tell me what is the priority to weight and why your impact is bigger.

Keeping your arguments simple and logical. I can easily get lost if you talk too fast or provide me tons of information.

Please be calm and polite. When you getting hostile to your opponent, I will think you lose control because you know you fail the round.

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Hi there! I did PF for 4 years. Below are some general guidelines for how you can win my ballot :)

A few things to take note of:

- My wifi tends to lag so PLEASE speak SLOWER. If you go too fast I might not catch stuff and I refuse to call for a speech doc unless if you cut out even when you're going at an understandable pace. It's your job to communicate your arguments to me, not mine to read your arguments off a doc :)

- Please don't take hours to find your evidence. I understand that sometimes your internet connection might slow down your evidence finding process but if you're taking way too long I'm not going to be happy. Keep your evidence organized!!

- Please preflow before rounds... if you ask to preflow once you get to the room I'm probably going to dock your speaker points. You have ample time to do so before rounds now that you don't have to physically walk to your room.

Ok now on to how you can win my ballot...

Things I like:

1. Weighing!!! Please weigh!!! If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to do my own weighing which you probably don’t want.

2. Warrants. Explain and flesh out your arguments. Don’t just read a blippy turn without any explanation and expect me to evaluate it at the end of round.

3. Collapsing. Going for an argument or two in the second half will help make your life and my life much easier. Quality over quantity.

4. Frontlining. Since summaries are 3 minutes now, first summary MUST frontline turns or any offense at the very least (second rebuttal should at least do the same).

5. Decorum. Debate is a high school extracurricular activity. Please be nice to your opponents before, during, and after round (although I understand cross can get a bit heated sometimes, just try to be nice). Save any rude comments for the bus or hotel or whatever.

*** If you’re extending a card, please don’t just say the card name. I tend to miss card names so tell me the argument you’re extending!!!!!!!!

Things I don’t like:

1. Spreading. I can usually keep up with speed, just not spreading!

2. New in the 2. Please don't make new arguments in final focus. You're just wasting your time. I'm not even going to flow it.

3. Bigoted arguments. I will drop you immediately and tank your speaks

4. Theory: No, just no. Please don't. If you run theory, I’m not even going to flow it and I definitely will NOT be evaluating it.

5. K’s: I’ll try my best to evaluate them. I’m not super familiar with them so if you do run a K, please flesh out your explanations and tell me why I should evaluate it over other arguments in the round. If you run one, you should be collapsing on it or else I will drop you for using it as a cheap way to win.

6. Postrounding. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Once I make a decision, I stand by it. Asking questions is FINE, but trying to change my mind is not.

7. Miscut evidence. Most likely I won't call for evidence unless if you tell me to or if you go for it and it sounds really sketchy. And yes, hate to break it to you, but I will drop you for miscut evidence (even if you win the debate) :) sorry not sorry! Strike me if this bothers you!

You can speak fast, but clarity is more important. Any arguments that I can not catch will not be counted in the round.

Tell me the reason that I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules. Be nice to each other.

Time yourselves.

UPDATE: Been off the circuit for a year now, take my paradigm with a grain of salt and have fun!!!! <3

Third-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, studying medicine. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9.

WHO AM I?

• I disclose and give oral feedback
• I appreciate trigger warnings
• I am a flow judge
• I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts. This is because I have no real knowledge regarding the crux of econ, poli, etc. This is only an exception for med-related topics (just keep it realistic for pharm-based topics)
• I do not like straight up card dumps that have little to no warrants
• Content > style

SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)

I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:

1. STYLE: Because I have been off the circuit for a while, I cannot keep up with speed but will try my best if you have a long argument (clarity > speed)
2. CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
3. MANNERS: This has never been a problem for me but any sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will be serious
4. TIME: If you go really overtime (like one minute longer) then it would be a problem

WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE

• Road map after second rebuttal
• Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But if you have any cool theories send it to my email helenh2001@gmail.com so I can have a funny dinner table conversation with my SO.
• Tech > truth (Except in med/pharm topics; I accept any well warranted and linked argument)
• I pay attention to crossfire but any real concession should be mentioned in speech
• Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
• Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
• If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final
• Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
• Focus on collapsing. 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it.
• Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
• Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded

HOW DO I VOTE?

• 90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
• Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
• Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that.
• Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.

MISC.

• Since I'm a college student, feel free to ask me any questions related to medical school
• I'm always down for a good banter
• Connect with me to chat more about academic-related questions: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-huang-635321146/

I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.

I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.

I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.

I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.

I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.

I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Currently a senior at the University of Maryland studying computer science an economics

Competed in PF from 2015-18 in Northern Virginia

Been judging PF from 2019-present

I consider myself flow and my decision will largely be based off what I flow at the end of the day

Note: I know the topic waaaay less well than you guys do so please keep your arguments simple, I competed for three years I know how sometimes it can seem like second nature to you, but if I can't wrap my head around your argument I can't vote on it, so please stay as unconvoluted and straight-forward as possible

Other things:

-don't say new stuff in FF, I won't consider it

-signpost, signpost, signpost, it makes my flow all the more easier and will help me in making a decision (usually in your favor)

-you can try theory's/k's/etc, if it's straightforward enough I can probably understand and it'll be used in your favor, but if you can't explain it concisely you're probably better off just evaluating the argument in a more conventional fashion

-spreading is fine, I can still flow, and if you can cover enough points that the opponent can't refute them all, I'll prolly vote in your favor

Hello! I did PF all four years in high school in NYC. I just have a few preferences for you all to keep in mind.

1. Please be respectful!!!! <<< This is so important

2. Weigh your impacts. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Why are your arguments stronger than your opponents' arguments?

3. Provide warrants. Claims can only be carried if you have trustworthy evidence.

Finally: please make your arguments clear and carry them throughout the round

Bring me a donut for bonus points (currently accepting by mail due to Covid-19 restrictions)

PF debater for four years, went to the TOC that one time.

How to win my ballot:

1) Signpost and Speak clearly. I can handle speed but if you're shouting cards at me and mumbling through them I can't guarantee I'll flow them.

2) Impact and Weigh. Don't let me do the thinking, tell me why I should vote for you and off what (Especially in FF and Summary).

3) Extend. If you want me to vote off something in FF, say it in Summary.

4) Talk to each other in CX. I don't flow cross, if you make a good point, put it in a speech.

5) Be nice. We're all friends here.

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

I require extensive statistics and proof of credentials to accept and effectively compare an argument. I have several years of experience as a PF competitor and judge.

Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.

I am a parent judge. Take a deep breath and give it your best.

Greetings!

I am a parent judge and new to Public Forum Debate. I am a former trial lawyer. I am looking forward to judging and will be looking for certain things as the rounds progress.

Most important to me will be a respectful and courteous exchange of arguments and ideas. Convincing arguments are much more persuasive when expressed with confidence and strength versus negativity and condescension.

Please speak clearly and slowly. It is more important to me that you express your position in a concise and measured manner versus speaking extremely fast and trying to pack in multiple arguments. There is more strength in less arguments expressed clearly and convincingly rather than more arguments delivered in rapid fire.

Time management is a critical skill. To that end, please keep time for yourselves. I will be keeping time, but your ability to keep within the time constraints of the competition is relevant.

It is incredibly important to me that you enjoy the process of interactive exchange of ideas. This is a life skill that will serve you all well in life, whatever path you choose to pursue.

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the Milton High School Debate Team. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not become "insufferable," and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I competed in public forum debate for four years at Centerville HS and have judged for the past four years. I am currently a senior at NYU. Add me to the email chain at sij233@nyu.edu.

There are a few things that I want to see in the round.

1) I think that using logic with evidence is important. Do not just dump cards and not explain the warranting behind them.

2) I like when teams give organized rebuttals and signpost.

3) Don't fight over evidence.

4) Don't run theory/K's as I am not too knowledgeable on them.

5) Use off-time roadmaps in the round so that I know where you are starting at.

6) I won't flow cross but if something major happens let me know in a speech.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round.

Good luck!

This is only my second time judging debate, so please do NOT talk fast and take it slow. I will judge the round off of who convinces me the most and the quality of your argumentation.

I am a lay judge for PF, so would appreciate debaters avoided jargon and overly fast speaking. I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge your arguments.

I will try to judge on the flow, and please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next round, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something happened extremely in the round.

By your summary or final round, you make a convincing case that your values outweigh your opponents' . And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round.

I’m a lay judge.

Explain acronyms, don’t use jargon

clarity > speed

Be professional

Don’t interrupt too much in cross

When you respond to arguments, don’t just say they’re wrong. You need data to back it. Also explain why your data is valid over theirs.

Hi y'all! I'm a second-year out who debated (well tried to) at Newton South for four years.

I'm flow enough, but extremely high speed or techiness is past my pay grade. "Uniqueness determines the direction of a link" or something is a term I never got while debating, and you'd have to really explain it to me now.

New arguments will be thrown out in summary and any new points are thrown out in final focus (if you're the other team, please shake your head vigorously and look incredulous to help me notice that it's new).

If some evidence is wack, let me know and I'll look at it. Bad evidence may drop speaks and make me throw out the point.

Uncontested defense flows through first summary. I've forgotten all the other rules of PF, so if you want any clarification just ask.

Please signpost! I've realized that in my old age my listening comprehension has deteriorated. Without really clear signposting any kind of speed is wasted on me.

Please weigh! But good weighing. It needs to be warranted, it's better if it's comparative, and I would appreciate link weighing as well. If both sides weigh but don't say why your weighing analysis is better, we're back to square one. This is a really easy way to win the round. Without weighing, I prioritize links over impacts.

Calmness: this is a really fun tournament! Enjoying the act of debating is hard when things get tense, but it makes everyone's day better.

Ask actual questions in cross! I usually don't evaluate cross, but I will poorly evaluate "I'm right, do you agree" or "You're wrong, do you have a response?"

It's really important to read paradigms so I'll give you 0.5 speaker points just by telling me you read my paradigm.

Good luck!

1. Do not talk fast. If I do not follow your argument, I cannot give you points for it. I take notes but do not mistake that for flowing the round and thus start speeding up.

2. In general, I feel that the quality of contentions is more persuasive than quantity.

3. It helps to have Aff to my right and Neg to my left.

4. Please keep time yourselves.

5. I prefer not to give verbal feedback and instead will try to do so via the ballot comments.

*** I wish both teams happy debating - and always, may the best team win!!! ***

Put me on the Email Chain--- Johnson.sidney01@gmail.com I am a current Policy Debater at Liberty University.

Top level Stuff

-Tech over truth

-Anything else is debatable

Policy debates

CP’s

• Love them

• The action of the CP and how you solve each IL of the aff must be clearly explained in the 2NC and on if you want me to vote on it

• On many process CP’s, Perm-Do CP is rather convincing and is probably a good strategy for you to win the debate

• I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff, unless you can win the theory debate behind those things.

DA’s

• DA’s versus case debates are probably my favorite debates to watch/judge.

• Clearly articulate the link and what the impact is

• Always do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR if you want me to vote the DA o/w solvency of the aff

• Big fan of wack DA’s so run them, but explain them

Theory

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. Three conditional options is probably good for negative flexibility, anymore more is probably pushing it a little. Granted, conditionality theory is all debatable.

K's

• Not familiar with most K bases beyond the stereotypical ones of Cap, Security, militarism, exc, so explain the parts of the K if u want me to vote for you.

• Contextualize your links to that specific debate and explain in detail why that they are true

• Spend less time reading cards and more analysis on why your argument is true

• Long overviews are complicated/hard to follow, instead you should focus more on the line by line.

• Explain why the Alt solves

• Have Warrants for you argument and don’t just make claims

In Round Stuff

• Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent.

• I will vote you down if you do something super offensive

• Speaker Points will reflect if I believe you were overly aggressive, rude, or just a jerk in the round

• Again, HAVE FUN

PF

In order for me to vote for you Mpxs in a round make sure you extend the link, IL and Mpx in the final focus. Please collapse down to one contention that you go for in the final focus( I promise this will get you better speaks).I believe the second to last final focus is inherently more difficult. So I will give higher speaks when executed well. Also Please Please Please tell me how to write my ballot backed up by warrants. Also I love Impact turns and if you run them well, I will give you great speaks.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

I have 6+ years experience between debating, judging, and coaching debate. Started out with WSDC, various Australasian formats, and BP, but have picked up policy along the way. This means I understand all the technical debate lingo, but overuse annoys me. Being able to explain yourself clearly shows greater mastery of the material than spouting jargon. Numbers help quantify impacts only insofar as the numbers and link work are clear.

Re. online debate: I cannot score you fairly if I cannot understand you.

Tech issues are completely normal and we all experience lag from time to time. Enunciate when presenting evidence, emphasize critical links, and take a breath where required - especially during cross. If you have a critical piece of information that you need me to hear, make sure to speak more slowly during that portion of your speech so that I actually pick it up.

PF/Policy:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything goes as long as your speech has some sort of structure. Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence. I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion. I would prefer you provide logical/structural reasons for why your arguments are superior instead of simply making assertions.

Open to take questions and give feedback if there's time. Just ask!

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

While I am comfortable with a wide range of styles, I do not prefer spreading in debate. Speak clearly so that I can follow your key points and cards. I like to see good use of evidence in the debate round, making your contentions sound. I'm open to your logical points and in this case try to link your logic directly to your case. Weigh your impacts as you progress deeper in the round and bring focus to the debate round as you explain why your team should win the ballot. Make the most of cross-ex / cross-fire and be courteous to your opponents. Use your time - both effectively, and all of it. I take a realistic view of the world economically/politically, so won't place a heavy emphasis on unrealistic or exaggerated impacts from a policy decision.

Please do not spread. Lay judge.

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

I judge based primarily on matter and manner. This means I evaluate both the persuasive content and performative aspects of speeches. I have coached and competed in Parli, PF, and BP (World's Style). I find humor to be persuasive, and appreciate attempts to insert humor into speeches. While I am ok with speed, I discourage it in PF debate to allow every round to be accessible and understandable to an average person.

I am a lay judge but it may help to know that I invest in young entrepreneurs for a living: so I judge peoples effectiveness at convincing me on a daily basis. I do not bring my existing knowledge or biases to the round - rather I look for effective contentions and how well you defend them.

For speaker points - I start midrange and go up or down from there in small increments. Clear enunciation of contentions and counters are appreciated. Use your words always and politely! Rudeness, speaking over others, aggressive body language are not.

Good prep counts as much as your delivery skills. I look for data-driven arguments and logical arguments. If you are asked for a card, I expect you to find it quickly.

If you choose to share your case arguments with me (so I can follow along better) or share evidence when called for, please email Shyam.Kamadolli@yahoo.com.

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

I’m a parent judge.

Some things to consider during the round:

1. Please don’t spread. I won’t know what you're saying and if I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

2. Ask useful questions during crossfire, I think the ability to respond on the fly is important. However, I won’t consider anything said during crossfire unless it is said during a subsequent speech.

3. Please don’t introduce new arguments during final focus. It is especially not fair for the 1st speaking team if they don't have a chance to response.

4. Read an arguments backed with warrants and cards from credible resources and authors, and tell me why you prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence.

5. Collapsing is important. Quality>Quantity. It is much better if you have one really good one that you focus the round on. Make your argument simple yet powerful.

6. Weighing is very important. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s do.

7. If any false, fake, or misconstrued evidence is run on purpose, I WILL drop you. Debate should be educational, and fake evidence hurts the purpose of this activity. If you believe that your opponents have run misconstrued or fake evidence, please call for the card.

8. As I’ve mentioned, I’m a lay judge, so I don’t understand most pf jargons. I think debate is about persuading normal people with a decent education, so try to make it so even “normal” parents can understand and vote for you.

With everything said, debate should be a fun, educational, extracurricular activity. Try to have fun and please be respectful to your opponents. But most of all, have fun!

TL;DR

I know stuff.

Bio (Completely Irrelevant)

I competed in PF for four years at Hamilton High School (2014-2018). In my senior year I was the captain of the team. I competed a lot on the AZ local circuit, and won/placed at a bunch of tournaments. I also competed a bit on the national circuit (broke boi couldn't afford all the plane tickets in HS), and have dabbled in Policy and Big Questions debate. Finally, I've also competed in the International Public Policy forum and achieved global Top 16 alongside my team. Today, I'm a student studying Computer Science and Physics at ASU.

Speed/Speaking

1. I can comprehend up to 275 words per minute, but my most accurate flowing happens at about 225 words per minute and under. Be smart about your word economy. If you can say it slower and make the same goddamn point just as effectively, do that. Do not sacrifice clarity for "speed" (I say "speed" because when you're messing up so much because you're trying to go faster than you're meant to, your effective speed is actually super slow.) Do not use the Gish gallop, this will annoy me severely.

2. I reserve the right to yell "CLEAR" at any point in the round; if I do, that means something with your speaking isn't working for me and it needs to be fixed; it could be speed, volume, enunciation, slurring, etc. I don't do this to be a jerk, I do it because I actually want to hear what you have to say. However, don't rely on my yelling of "CLEAR" as an absolute metric though, because you might just not be egregious enough for me to say it. If I look confuzzled or like I'm not understanding what's going on, that is likely the case.

3. There are a myriad of references you can make that will bump up your speaker points if they are eloquently incorporated into your speech: PewDiePie, Speedcubing, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti, Future, Juice WRLD, Eminem, Deadpool, Mr. Robot, or Avatar (NOT the blue aliens one). Saying "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the end of the speech is no longer novel to me, and I won't count it.

Cross-Ex

0. As a general rule, cross is for you, not me.

1. I will not judge on what is said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. (I do actually listen though - even if I'm walking around, eating, etc. - unless it's mind-numbing, which happens fairly frequently).

2. Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case, I don't frown on that. Don't be afraid to ask why; at best, their reasoning will be moronic and easy to dismantle, and at worst, we all learn something.

3. Don't go back and forth and waste time during cross. (But depth is awesome and absolutely necessary, don't misconstrue the two).

4. I don't see "my partner will answer this in speech" as a weakness if it's because the idea takes a bit to explain or if you already know your partner will expound on an idea you briefly mention, but I might still smile at it, because it's memey. But if it's a question that you should be able to answer, then that's probably a problem.

5. When someone asks for an explanation of a warrant, "we have a card for that" is not an appropriate answer. This is also true for the round in general, not just CX. ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS; if the answer wouldn't have been satisfying for you then it's likely not satisfying for me either. A card is not a warrant in and of itself.

6. Standing or sitting, don't care. Do a handstand if you want.

7. First speaking team gets the first question, no need to ask, just get into it.

8. Towards the end of cross, y'all can reserve the right to end it if there's nothing to talk about, and just prep instead during that time (for a MAX of thirty seconds) (especially GCX).

Timing

1. Please time yourself. I basically always forget, so please keep track of yourselves and each other (that goes for speech AND prep).

2. If you need to verbally let me know your opponent is going over time, that's fine (just give them like 4 seconds of grace period). You can avoid all of the ambiguity by just using a timer that actually goes off at the end of the speech too.

Etiquette

1. Try to get to the round on time (I will too). If you need time in the room to get your stuff together, or pre-flow, I'm totally cool with that, I just don't want to accidentally tell Tabroom you don't exist (same reason I'll try to be there on time). But again, s*** happens, so I'm gonna try not to be annoying about time, as much as possible.

2. I like Aff on my left, Neg on my right. The world will not end if this is not true, however.

3. I’m not uptight; I like a chill vibe in rounds. I like judging rounds where everyone's actually having fun (especially me). Good jokes are great, bad jokes are colossal failures. (If you can make your opponents' argument seem so ridiculous that it's funny, you're probably being quite convincing). I encourage being savage, but in a tasteful-ish manner. Being savage is not the same as being petulant.

4. You can swear, I don’t care. Actually, I'll probably like it, especially if it helps with your rhetorical efficacy.

5. I’d rather not shake hands. Shaking hands with me won’t magically help or hurt your chances of winning, but it could get either of us sick.

Debate-y Stuff

1. Signpost everything, for the love of music, video games, Netflix, pets, and parents. I literally don’t know where to put stuff if you don’t signpost (and then I won't write anything, and it'll be your fault).

a. If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and what happens to offense as a result.

b. If you're frontlining a response, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to, and what I need to extend as a result of this frontline.

2. Structure responses in a systematic manner, at the least. I really prefer numbered responses in rebuttals and I like numbered frontlines in the summaries and second rebuttals (this makes it easier to reference which response we're talking about at any point).

3. Please extend arguments throughout both Summ/FF speeches consistently, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. However, you don't have to yell "extend" before everything you extend (because that’s annoying), just contextualize the argument and why I should extend it.

4. If you’re not frontlining, you will probably auto-lose the round, because I want to watch an actual debate.

5. I like to have a roadmap before speeches, but it should NOT be flowery. For example: “framework, aff case, neg case.” If you’re doing something weird though, let me know. In most cases, I just want to know which side of the flow we're starting on.

6. There’s no reason to "extend" your own case in rebuttal if "time permits" if you’re the first speaking team. I don’t get why debaters do this, but it’s a waste, and I WILL drop speaker points for this.

7. 2nd rebuttal should address the 1st rebuttal.

8. 1st summary should address the 2nd rebuttal.

9. I’m cool with overviews.

a. If an overview applies to an argument specifically, remind me of the overview and cross apply it.

b. Your overview shouldn’t just be another contention though, that’s not the point.

10. If you read a definition, actually make it useful for your case. "But bro, they didn't have a definition, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

11. Frameworks can be as important as you make them.

a. If your frameworks agree, just stop mentioning it, I’ll use it.

b. Weighing really helps to solidify a ballot, and a carded weighing analysis can really help with that. Also, you NEED to tell me how to weigh unlike things; it's easy to say $200 million is more than $170 million, but we all know this is rarely how debate functions. If you don't convince me of a way to adjudicate the round, I don't know what the hell to do.

c. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

12. ALL offense must be in summary.

a. The first summary does not need to include defense unless this defense has been frontlined already.

b. However, turns must be in summary, otherwise they will end up only being terminal defense. (Otherwise it's abusive, the other team needs to know what you're going for).

13. I hate key voters, they obfuscate the round for me. Instead keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially line-by-line, but don't think saying card names aimlessly is going to mean anything, so don't card dump).

14. I GREATLY encourage collapsing. Kick an argument and instead show me why the one you go for is enough for the win. (You can’t kick an argument with a turn on it and expect things to be okay for you though, obviously.)

15. Please verbally label turns explicitly. It really helps me to see how you get offense on your opponent’s case. (Like actually say the word "turn" or something very similar).

16. Don’t give me a specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan).

17. Don’t give me a random alt on the Neg.

18. Please don’t strawman, make sure you respond to the actual arguments your opponents are making. That's the number one way to get me to tune out quickly.

19. K's might not be the best idea because I default to post-fiat impacts. The only way you'll win with a K is if you actually convince ME I should go pre-fiat or your K solves in a post-fiat analysis.

20. I don't flow card names for the most part, so make sure to tell me what the card says.

21. I love creative, innovative, eye-opening, deep arguments that come from another angle. I hate stupid, nonsensical arguments that disguise themselves as novel when they're not. Running one of those will get you yeeted. Logic actually matters, people. (This isn't to say I'm not tabula rasa, I really am very close. The point I'm making is that my threshold for refuting inherently ridiculous arguments is inherently lower than those that actually make sense, so you're handicapping yourself severely within the context of the round by running something we all know is dumb. For example, if the Aff tells me that "elephants are purple" and the Neg responds with "no," I will consider that an effective response. Remember, in the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and if you're giving me less-than-extraordinary evidence, you're screwed, because your opponents are probably smarter than your "argument").

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. If you want to know how you're doing in a round, look at me, chances are that'll give you some information because my face can be very telling. I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. I will almost always disclose, and I will provide a detailed verbal RFD, which often includes a significant degree of roasting. You can ask me questions after the round about anything, but don't argue with me, because I will submit my ballot before I disclose. Good luck.

I did debate for 4 years in high school and 2-3 years in middle school (mainly LD and somewhat PF).

Read whatever you want to read and however fast you want to read it. If you need any specifics, just ask before the round :)

I am a student at Stanford with significant experience as both a debater and as a coach. The best advice I can give you is to be as RIDICULOUSLY EXPLICIT as to why you are winning the round as possible. This clarity includes clarity with regard to exactly where you are on the flow, clarity with regard to the exact nature of the arguments you are making, and clarity with regard to the exact interaction between arguments. While I am a technical/flow judge, you should not assume that I will fully comprehend and be convinced by everything you say. The vast majority of debaters lose rounds not because they could not conceive of how to win, and not because they didn't have the capacity to win, but because they were not as ridiculously explicit as possible in their arguments.

In general, I would suggest that you spend less time than you normally would making arguments in the later speeches, and more time than you normally would doing analysis regarding the different arguments in the round. If you do lots of good analysis--which includes weighing--you will probably win the round.

My comments above take care of most things I would otherwise discuss in my paradigm. I am fine with virtually any argument and don't have particularly strong preferences, as long as they are structured coherently and are compelling.

Parli: a few specifics:

Speed: I am fine with speed, but I find that it's often not done very well in parli. Make sure regardless you are as extremely clear as possible.

Kritiks: Totally fine, but it's extremely easy for a lot of K's to very quickly get very confusing and not very clear. If you do go this route, be as ridiculously explicit as possible. Also, provide some sort of interpretive framework so that I can evaluate the kritik in the context of the rest of the arguments in the round. Also, make your links clear--debaters often go on about the impacts of a k without deeply connecting it to the rest of the round. And don't assume I am familiar with your argument.

Theory: Totally fine, but once again its extremely easy for theory to very quickly get very confusing and not very clear. Make sure your interp and your entire shell is as explicitly clear as possible. Also, make the argument compelling--while I am a flow judge, there is not a high chance I will vote for you off theory if you don't substantively flesh it out. I am not a big fan of frivolous theory, or theory that is run just because the other team is less technically adept.

I won't do K vs theory weighing for you.

Hi, I am a parent judge with local PF judging experience.

I prefer if debaters could speak clearly and slowly so I can flow the debate and I will vote for the team who makes the most compelling and persuasive argument.

Please make sure to be respectful and kind in the round and allow everyone a chance to speak, refrain from cutting off people or interrupting them.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak slow enough that the average person can hear clearly. If I don't understand something I will not flow.

Couple of things:

- I like off time roadmaps.

- I don't vote on crossfire.

- Please frontline/defend your case.

Speaker Points:

Confident and clear speaking will get you a higher score. Clear enunciation.

Use tones. Do not speak monotonously. When you are saying something important, make it clear that it is important, whether through your words, your voice, or both.

I listen carefully, make your words matter.

I'm a parent judge that's judged a couple debates before. Please speak slowly so I can understand your points and follow your arguments. I have no background knowledge on the Arctic topic and have no personal experience as a debater. Please be courteous to each other.

I am a parent judge. My day job is Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, where I spend most of my time running a research lab exploring the role of non-coding RNAs in gene expression and heredity. I know quite a bit about science, but, alas, not so much about economics or public policy. This means that, unless we are debating a science question, I am not an expert. Additionally, I have never debated myself. For this reason, if you use topic-specific or debate-related jargon/acronyms there is a pretty good chance I will not know what you are talking about. Although I do my best, I am also not a "flow" judge and, therefore, you are not likely to win the round based on debating subtleties or total number of contentions made/refuted. I find that most PF speakers overestimate my ability to follow their arguments. Bludgeoning me with a laundry list of facts, whose relevance I find difficult to ascertain, is probably not going to get my vote. Remember, you have been thinking about this material for a long time... I have been thinking about it for a few minutes to a few hours. If you remember anything from this paradigm remember this...less is often more with me. Organize your arguments clearly and logically and avoid burying me under poorly connected factoids. Spend time explaining the underlying essence of why your central arguments are better than your opponent's central arguments and you will do well. As the old saying goes..... don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I understand that since I am parent, I am not as qualified a professional judge, so feel free to strike me. With that said, I do have quite a bit of experience judging have judged several national circuit debates and late elimination rounds at nationals.

Overall, I really appreciate if you go slow and really explain your arguments. For me, while sounding pretty is good, I will look at who is winning the merit of the argument and throughout the round who most consistently rebuts and actually analyses the arguments better on a technical sense.

Crossfire is also important as well as other regular lay norms.

I am a parent judge who has never judged public forum debate. Please try and speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand your arguments; I will vote for the team whose argument makes more sense to me. I will not be flowing the round, just listening. Most importantly, be respectful and have fun!

Hello I'm a senior at Concord-Carlisle High School and have debated PF for about 3 years now.

I'm a flow judge. I'm going to keep it simple, weigh your impacts, extend your arguments and provide me with voting issues at the end. Warrant out your responses and don't just tell me that you've won your contention, explain why with your link chain and evidence. When you repeat evidence, please reread the author and date, otherwise it won't show up on my flow. I want to see a consistent narrative throughout the round, so use the summary and final focus well to build it.

Rebuttal

- In 2nd rebuttal, I expect you to frontline, and I do value tech over truth, as long as you don't make any outlandlish and false arguments against your opponents case.

Summary & Final Focus

- When you weigh, don't just say "Prefer our impact". Tell me why based on probability, timeframe, etc. and explain why your weighing mechanism is also more important than theirs.

- Please collapse. I judge off the flow, and if there's too much on it because you haven't collapsed well, my flow looks like a mess and it makes my life harder.

Progressive Stuff

- I'll admit, I'm not too familiar with theory and K's. If you are going to run these types of arguments, explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old. There's still a 95% chance that I won't buy it or understand it, but you can still try to run it.

Evidence

- I put my email at the bottom, but please put me on the email chain: skhanolkar21@concordcarlisle.org

- Once again, don't just give me author and date, I want the source, because otherwise, I really can't trust your evidence.

Speaking

For speaking, I can handle a faster pace, but I expect the speed to be at an understandable pace, especially in an online environment.

Other

I don't really care for off time roadmaps, just organize your speech as you go.

Be respectful to your opponents, and do not insult or make any derogatory comments or arguments towards anyone. Behavior that matches this criteria could result in a loss of speaker points.

If you have any questions about my RFD, here's my email: skhanolkar21@concordcarlisle.org

I'm a debate coach at Riverside HS in SC. I believe debate is an educational activity where the skills you learn should help you for the rest of your life. Delivery is important. Respect for your opponent is a must.

Public Forum:

I don't think K's have a place in PF. This isn't policy. I also think theory has devolved from it's original purpose, and in most cases, has become a tool for teams to try to get a cheap win. If you think there was a serious evidence violation, do an official evidence challenge (check the NSDA rules if you don't know what this is) or call it out and tell me to read it if you're nervous about hinging an entire round on this one violation. If your opponent is being rude or malicious, I'll intervene.

While I flow everything and understand the lingo, treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread. Please weigh.

Weighing is just a comparative analysis, so be sure to engage your opponents arguments when you weigh. If your weighing is all about your case, it tells me nothing about how it compares to your opponent's (so you didn't actually weigh anything). Also include why we should favor your weighing mechanism versus your opponent's if they differ.

I'm not a fan of extending anything through ink. If it's important enough for you to try to win off of it, you should be bringing it up well before FF.

Please sign post during your speeches.

When extending evidence, please also include the warranting behind the evidence. I’m human and don’t always catch everything about your evidence on my flow the first time around.

Please be quick about sharing evidence during rounds. It shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to pull a card and send it (should be almost immediate if its from case).

Also I think crossfire is the most interesting part of most debate rounds. I'm definitely listening and may vote off of it if your weighing isn't comparative.

If you want clarification on anything on (or not on) my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask before the round.

PF 2022/2023:

I debated in PF competitively for 6 years and graduated from Tufts University, majoring in Economics and Community Health (take that as you may). If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at nathankim925@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

General:

• Signpost throughout so I know what's going on.
• Dropped arguments are critical. Dropped arguments are near-impossible to recover from (given the argument is reasonable), and if a team weighs and extends the argument effectively, consider the round over.
• I enjoy creative arguments that show you researched the topic well. I always expect stock arguments to be the focal point of a round, but innovative arguments that allow me to analyze the round in a new way will be rewarded. However, there is a limit to truth & reality in all arguments.
• If you have any advice that would make me a better judge, let me know after I disclose.
• Pre-flow before you enter the room, especially if you're flight 2.
• If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.

Evaluating the Round:

• You should do the work of telling me what to prioritize when voting.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH
• If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.
• I evaluate impacts on both magnitude and likelihood so I’m not going to let bizarre stuff dictate a round, even if it’s dropped.
• It'll be difficult for me to evaluate theory/Ks as I have no experience using them. That being said, I’m open to different types of argumentation so if you explain it well then it’s to your benefit.

Notes on Second Rebuttal:

• No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.
• In second rebuttal you should frontline first rebuttal. I understand there isn't a lot of time, but at the minimum, respond to turns.

Summary/FF:

• Summary & FF should mirror each other – consolidate all offense you want to use in summary & FF.
• Defense that's frontlined in second rebuttal should be addressed in first summary.
• Defense is sticky but if you want to collapse on sticky defense, quickly bring it up in summary & FF to remind me.
• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH!!! If you're weighing is ambiguous/unclear, I'll have to evaluate it on my own. You don't want that.
• During FF, please give me voters - don't do a line-by-line.

Cross:

• I don't flow cross but I think it's an important part of the debate. If something round-altering happens, make sure to tell me in your next speech.
• If both sides agree we can forego grand cross and add an extra minute of prep to both teams.
• No leading questions!

Cards & Explaining Evidence:

• Read cards in constructive.
• Explaining evidence is part of extending evidence. "Extend Goncalves 19 from our case" is not an extension. "Extend Goncalves 19 because it explains..." is an extension.
• I dislike evidence wars. Don’t go back & forth on the validity of a source
• I will call for cards if: 1. you ask me to; 2. it's critical to my decision; 3. the card seems "too good to be true" and I want to verify it.
• If you intentionally alter info about a card in any way to help your team, speaks will be deducted and/or I'll give the ballot to the other team.

Speed:

• I have never been a big fan of speed but if you want to go fast, slow down for authors & warrant taglines
• Don't compromise clarity for speed. Pick up on non-verbal cues to slow down if necessary (not flowing, looking visibly confused, etc.)

Speaks:

• I usually will give 26-30, anything <26 is reserved for anything offensive/spreading after many signals not to do so.
• Avg. speaks given by division: Varsity: 28.33; Open/JV/Novice: 27.03 (smaller sample); Middle School: 28.21

Pronouns she/her.

Updates for 2023

I have not judged during the 2022-23 season so may be out of practice and unaware of new arguments.

Please be thoughtful about class, race and gender dynamics happening during the debate. My threshhold for abusive behavior in the debate space lowers every year and I become more and more willing to vote on theory in all formats. If I see abuse against an inexperiened team that doesn't know how to run theory, I will drop you all the same and spend my rfd time teaching them how to run theory.

For PF:

My flowing will only be as good as your sign-posting, tagging and articulation. I am not a fan of the pf cases that read like an oratory and are impossible to flow. I expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. Offense is not sticky. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches so you don't need to tell me. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules.

I am open to theory arguments in PF as I see it as one of the only effective mechanisms for addressing some of the ills of pf. You should have a proper theory shell though.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. I like a crossfire that is clarifying and illuminates areas of dispute. To that end, I prefer that everybody be super chill. Yelling, berating, and asking obviously abusive questions are all good ways to tank your speaks. You will never impress me by out-aggressing your opponent during CX.

I'm not a fan of blippy debate and tend to vote on the arguments that are fleshed out, well evidenced and that provide a clear path to the ballot. I personally think the emphasis on weighing overlooks the need to have a clear link with good warranting and strong evidence. I'm not entirely tech > truth because I can't always bring myself to vote on technical arguments that are not fleshed out enough to be plausible.

I think the second rebuttal should respond to turns but I'm okay with other responses coming in summary. I see defense as sticky. I like to see teams collapse and don't love the style of debate where final focus is an exact rerun of summary --would rather see that the debate has progressed or that your weighing and warranting has advanced b/c of clash.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't judged LD/Policy in a year so you may lose me if you are super fast. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am open to different styles including LARP and K debate. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered.

I am not a fan of silly theory arg's but they still need to be responded to. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them.

I am pretty familiar with a lot of the K literature and it is difficult for me to vote for debaters who use it so badly that it is nonsensical.

For Policy:

I like both traditional and progressive debate. I really want students to engage directly with the arguments, their underlying assumptions and areas of clash with the opponent. It is hard to be convinced by an argument you don't understand.

I'm open to role of the ballot/framing issues when weighing structural violence impacts.

When judging I take a lot of notes, so if you make a good point I will make sure to put it down. It happens quite often, especially with strong teams, that the winner of the tournament is not obvious even after the tournament is finished - in this case I make my decision on the amount of facts and points presented.

For me factual examples and historical practices are incredibly strong as an argument.

Here and there there would pop up a weak point and a strong competitors should address that.

Also, I enjoy hearing arguments that are new and fresh - it shows that competitors have expanded their research.

I think that crossfires are an opportunity to rebuttal and contradict the opponents points and arguments and should not be wasted on clarifications, especially if there are not addressed later on.

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

I like to see off time road maps so that it’s easier for me to follow your line of thinking/argument.

I also prefer if the case is laid out as a) contention, b) supporting points, c) impact. Helps me if impact is clearly articulated.

Speak clearly and not hurried.

Please show courtesy and politeness as you debate.

I am a new parent judge so please try to speak slowly. I favor clarity over speed and prefer quality over quantity. Please explain your arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow. Most of all, be kind and have fun! Enjoy!

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and be respectful of your opponents.

Competed in PF for 6 years.

PF:

- Not fond of theory in PF particularly but it's fine if used strategically

- Summary is the most important speech in a round

Other events:

- Not too familiar with them so treat me as a lay judge

Fan of humor in debate :))

Round is won based on content/strat and speaks are determined by how well you can actually speak.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD, ending out in octos of TOC senior year.

So, I've been coaching for the past 7 years and my views on debate have changed dramatically from when I was in highschool. The number one thing to understand about me is that I truly do consider myself to be tabula-rasa, meaning you can read anything, I simply value the execution of the strategy that you read. The ONLY caveat I have here is tricks; please please do not read some one-line bs, the other side drops it, and then you get up and extend it and win. If you make an actual argument and it's dropped, I totally get it - but the "resolved apriori" will make me very sad. It's not that I won't vote off it, but my threshold for rejecting it will be so low that as long as the other side says "No. Just No." that will be enough for me. I want to see actual debates!

Okay, besides tricks - do whatever you want. I've coached a ton of kids the past 7 years in phil, policy, kritiks, etc. and really enjoy judging all types of debates. I love a one-off K strat just as much as a 4-off NC strat, to me it's about the strategy in which you deploy an argument and how it collapses by the end of the debate that influence me.

I love impact turn debates, solid counterplans, strong internal links on disads, core assumptions challenged within links for a kritik - all is game. I do really enjoy CX, if you can be dominant there and have some personality, speaks will benefit and I'll just be more engaged.

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

Hello!

• I am an an amateur parent judge
• I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the contentions you win on the basis of evidence and weighing in the Final Focus
• I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but please don't go too fast

Good luck and I am excited to see your debate.

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF for a year now. I like to hear arguments that are clear and logical and relate directly to the topic. Just a few well articulated points will go long way in making the case for your side. I'd say that I prefer moderate speed but ok if you have to go a bit faster to make all your points.

Hello,

I am a mother of a debater. This is my third year of PF judging, however, Harvard is my first online tournament.

You can consider me a lay judge. I understand the flow and try to follow the rules of the flow, but I believe in logical and supported by facts arguments more than in just counting items in the contentions, rebuttals, and responses.

I value the interesting logical and effective arguments and the evidence of the hard work and research.

I prefer when you speak in an understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

Please show respect to your opponents, I cannot stand rudeness and offensive behavior.

Most important have fun!

Good luck!

I am a father of a debater. This is my third year judging.
I consider myself a flow judge, but my son tells me that I am a lay judge. I guess, the truth is in between. I try to keep counts for all items in the contentions, rebuttals, and responses, but maybe not to that level to be considered a real flow judge.
I am not a native English speaker, so please don't speak very fast, especially if you are also not a native English speaker.
So, try to do your best, I and will try to do my best as well. Good luck!

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

No need to be too slow, but speak clearly so I can understand you. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I can't evaluate the argument.

During crossfire, if one side asks the other a question, do not interrupt the other side when they are giving an answer.

Advocate your position through logical reasoning and support it by presenting evidence clearly.

I'm a novice college debater and did not do debate in high school so I can't give very useful RFDs but won't be very strict giving out speaks either, especially to teams that seem inexperienced.

Please don't speak too quickly and try to signpost whenever possible, it will only hurt you if I can't understand your arguments!

Hi! My name is Sophie (she/her), I am a current senior in college, and I did PF for four years in high school.

Just a few things to guide this round:

1) Please speak clearly and slowly

2) I have done no research on this topic so make sure to fully explain your arguments

3) Be respectful

4) Carry your important points over to summary and final focus or I will drop them

Looking forward to the round!

Hi! I just graduated from college (engineering) and am entering law school in the fall. I debated in middle school and have some high school/college public speaking experience.

I like logical arguments with robust reasoning (specific examples are of secondary importance to me). I am OK with speed for the most part, but please enunciate so that I can follow your case. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when debaters try to cram a speech in during crossfire.

I have 8 years experience with WSDC and BP, around 3 coaching and judging PF. I understand all the jargon, so don't hesitate using it.

For PF rounds:

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear

Logic is the easiest way to win me over, as long as it's paired with evidence

I'd rather you don't spread because it's generally hard to flow that, but if you do, make sure to share your speech doc with me and your opponent. IMO, spreading should be used to fit more material but not to confuse your opponent.

I generally don't love theory arguments, but if you run them, make sure to link them clearly to the motion.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

This is Public Forum Debate. Look over what the description of PF is:

In contrast to policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, there is little focus on extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory; instead, successful public forum debaters must make persuasive and logical arguments in a manner that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. Public forum debate also focuses on not only logical, but research based arguments.

If you want me to look at evidence, tell me, but don't overdue it.

Rudeness will be penalized. Doing things in PF that are not supposed to be done in PF will be penalized.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

Hi, I debated in Public Forum for Syosset High School for 4 years and graduated in 2019.

Note: It has been a while since I've debated/heard a round (about 2 years). I'll try to be as technical and proficient as possible in my judging, but I may not be up to date with the way arguments are run and I'll need a while to get used to your speed if you're fast. Please be clear!

General:

- Speed is generally not an issue, BUT just make sure that you are being CLEAR.

- My main criteria for voting on arguments is if clear and justifiable links/impacts are provided (and properly defended throughout the course of the round). As a former PF debater, I would prefer if you stayed away from a more LD style of debate with theory.

- Make sure to engage and carry out all major arguments/refutations/responses to rebuttals through all speeches. If there is an obvious clash in arguments, I want it to be directly engaged.

- If a framework is provided by either side, I expect it to be addressed by both sides during the debate and I will judge the rest of the round either using whichever framework is best advocated for. If no framework is provided by either side, then I will just approach the round with a more Utilitarianism framework.

- DO NOT be mean, rude, or overly aggressive. This is a must.

Speaker Points:

- I'll base these on clarity and argument quality. Please keep track of your time for your speeches! I am ok with you being a few seconds under/above the designated speaking time, but note that I will stop listening once I tell you that your speech time is up.

That's pretty much everything, but feel free to ask any questions before the round if I missed something you're wondering about. Most importantly, enjoy what you learn from debate and best of luck!

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

I am a lay judge ( I know - bummer) but I have judge PF before so I will give you as much information to assist you in the round I am judging. I am a lawyer so I appreciate a good debate. I vote for organization (I need to be able to follow the argument), how well you can support your contentions, and attack the other sides argument. I expect you to argue your case and back it with evidence. I rarely ask for evidence so I expect you to point out the weakness/flaws in your opponent's argument. I want to hear you argue your case, not strategies, technicalities or theories. I know time is limited and in PF teams like to speak fast; however it will not do you any good if I cannot follow or understand your argument. You can speak fast but not as fast as you would with a technical judge. Most of the rounds I have judged were won or lost on cross - so use your time wisely. I expect teams to act professionally and respect their opponents. Good Luck!

Hi! I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I did a little bit of PF debate in middle school, so I'm relatively inexperienced with it. I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Overall, I believe PF should be understandable to a general audience and you should be able to explain in a easily understandable manner why your side should win the debate.

Mainly did interps (DI DUO OPP) and some debate (LD) in high school (Palo Alto, 2018). Qualified to a few things. APDA in college (Johns Hopkins, 2022) for a semester, left team due to time constraints. Now I coach interps for Paly. Add me to the email chain: stephaniekaelee@gmail.com. Pronouns: She/her/hers.

Debate:

General:

- Signpost please. If you don't I'll assume you're going off/on case and doing line by line.

- I flow on paper. If my pen is down/if I'm staring at you, I'm not writing anything down — whatever you say will not be evaluated.

- I'm pretty non-interventional. Walk me through your arguments, voters, and weigh (plz). I vote on voters and crystallization. However, I'm a sucker for warranting and clash and may vote on line by lines over voters if it's well done.

- Don't use your evidence as a crutch - tbh well-warranted & impacted args are king and I'll probably vote on that over evidence with okay warranting & impact.

- Speed is fine as long as it's not spreading. If you spread I will k word your speaks.

- Don't expect me to take existential impacts seriously, unless your links are very strong and it's topical.

LD-Specific:

- Treat me like a lay judge because I haven't done high school debate in over six years and APDA isn't super techy compared to circuit LD.

- Kind of goes without saying but I don't tolerate dumping/other abuse (especially 2A).

- I'm okay with CPs. Read them if you want — they won't affect speaks.

- Values debate is cool, but it's annoying when your values are justice/equality/morality/etc etc. If they're all pretty similar, save everyone some time and skip it. Unless it's a key voter and you and your opp have very different V/VC, I don't care.

Speech:

- Trigger warn the whole room - this is a good practice to do in general.

- Ask for signals if you need them.

- Don't stonewall, that's not fun and it's toxic. Audience reactions are independent of my rankings, but I will note if you are a bad audience member.

Finally, be respectful and decent. If you are sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic etc., I will not hesitate to destroy your speaks.

On another note, if you make a TikTok reference in one of your speeches I'd probably feel genuine happiness for the first time since March.

I am a lifelong speech and debate person. My judging is informed by a policymaking background but not determined by it. I don't believe I have a particular paradigm per se. My ballot pen responds well to clash and specificity.

Heyo! I (a debater) am writing this for my mom (very much not a debater) based on some preferences she’s mentioned over the years. Here’s what you need to know:

In short, she is the public that public forum was made for. She writes “notes” but consider her a very traditional lay parent judge.

The easiest way to win her ballot is to make the round as clear as possible for her. Don’t get caught up in the nitty-gritty of the round; rather, collapse on a clear narrative and give her big picture ideas (pro tip: try a two-world analysis in your weighing!).

Assume she has no topic knowledge, so warrant(!!) very clearly— she won’t make the logic jumps for you. Also, her threshold for BS arguments is pretty low (she’s more truth > tech) so if you are running something squirrelly, warranting is especially important.

This is super specific but she’s a big fan of numbered responses in rebuttal lol. She probably won’t be flowing but she still likes signposting and labelling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lastly, try to keep jargon to a minimum. Speed = no.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello!

I'm a sophomore at Tufts University studying political science and economics and I did pf for 4 years at Newton South High School.

I have a couple of preferences when it comes to debate rounds that I think are pretty standard. I can deal with some speed, but no spreading please! I like good weighing. Essentially, don't just shout magnitude and scope at me, but actually explain why your impact is more important than your opponents. Good warranting and explanation of your arguments is very important to me because if I don’t understand your link chain I can’t justify voting off of it. Try to keep things as clear as possible because that’s probably who I’ll vote for. I may have debated in high school, but that does not mean that I know anything about the topic so please explain things relevant to the topic as if I've never heard them before because I probably haven't. I’m also not a big fan of theory unless it's absolutely necessary. First speaking teams can extend defense not said in first summary into final focus. Signposting is always a nice plus. I also enjoy if you are human and tell a story while debating if you can. Finally, in your 2 minute speeches please collapse your arguments and focus on 1-2 points.

This should be a given, but just generally be nice to each other! Feel free to make jokes and have fun as well because debate is supposed to be enjoyable.

Feel free to ask me any questions and I look forward to watching some good debates :)

tl;dr: collapse, weigh, and don't use evidence as a crutch because warrants are better. go only as fast as you need.

I debated PF at Newton South High School for 4 years.

How to contact me: Email me questions at mlezhnin@umass.edu

^you may also send a well written post round essay about why you should've won the round. i won't read it but it will be cathartic for you so i strongly recommend it, should you feel your loss was undeserved. so far no one has taken me up on this offer, so i assume im just a perfect judge. ;-)

1. Regular round info

Speed: Don't spread. Don't let this be an excuse for card dumping. Max is probs 200 wpm (im getting old and i havent judged in a long time)

Weighing: Please weigh, and weigh everything - not just impacts.

Warranting: Warrants over cards. Every time. I can find evidence that says anything, or overwhelm you with fake evidence, but you can't do that with warrants.

Evidence: See ^. I will read evidence only if it is the only possible way for me to make a decision. In rounds with heavily quantified evidence, I will also consider some impact evidence for the purposes of weighing if it comes down to it.

2nd rebuttal: Respond to turns. Frontlining is good. No offensive overviews/disads.

Extensions: You need to extend, with some clarity, what you plan to win off of. That being said, I don't like evaluating debate like a robot - if in second ff you drop the exact warrant of your impact and it was properly reexplained in summary then you'll be fine. Don't get sloppy though.

Cross: I hate cross. I will likely be on my phone, checking my email, fixing my flow, or writing parts of an RFD during cross. The less distracting you make cross to me the better. Any concessions should be brought up in a speech.

Speaks: Be funny, be articulate, be nice.

2. Philosophy on judging

Truth >= Tech (thanks Lucy Chae for this description). Basically, if there is some reasonable argument to be made for the veracity of the statement, I will accept it.

Debating a 2:1 flow:parent judge panel as a flow round excludes parent judges. If two teams decide to do this in an outround, I'll drop either whichever team started it or whoever is going faster or using more jargon.

I love a good meme case, or a case with low probability high magnitude impacts. I am not very likely to vote on it, but I think they can make debates fun. However, please be respectful and still take the debate seriously. Evidence such as Bostrom, Baudrilard, Batille etc. is welcome, but should be properly explained.

3. Nontopical arguments (theory, kritiks)

I will evaluate a non topical argument, but only if the abuse being checked is so obvious it could be explained to a parent (if you come into the round expecting to win off theory or a K, i probably won't like it). In that case, explain it to me as a parent. Ask if you'd like more detail.

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am a LAY judge.

Please do not spread, or run theory. Slowing down would be appreciated.

1st. Being Polite and respectful.

2nd. Being honest and reasonable. I would rather you concede a bad point than sketchily try to defend it.

3rd. Explaining why whatever thing you're talking about matters. Collapsing tends to make this easier.

4th. Weighing.

I give high speaker points as long as you're respectful.

Please signpost, it will help me with my flow. Don't stress out too much, and enjoy yourselves!

I am a LAY judge.

Please do not spread, or run theory. Slowing down would be appreciated.

1st. Being Polite and respectful.

2nd. Being honest and reasonable. I would rather you concede a bad point than sketchily try to defend it.

3rd. Explaining why whatever thing you're talking about matters. Collapsing tends to make this easier.

4th. Weighing.

I give high speaker points as long as you're respectful.

Please signpost, it will help me with my flow. Don't stress out too much, and enjoy yourselves!

Senior at Princeton who did four years of PF for Regis High School. I really value good weighing and clear warranting - stats don't mean anything unless you can explain why they're true. Please don't be rude. Feel free to ask any more specific questions before the round!

TL;DR — Tech > truth. Please don't make me do work. Be nice :)

Background: I debated in public forum for Harker for 4 years. If you have any questions about my preferences listed below, please don't hesitate to ask before the round.

How I vote:

1. I look at the framework debate and consider the offense under the winning framework. Please settle this early in the round if possible.

2. I evaluate the easiest paths to the ballot first. This is where it helps to (1) have a smart strategy throughout the round that makes the narrative easier, and (2) explain warrants well.

3. Weigh. Do as much of this as you can. Clear up the clash on important issues and weigh your impacts, because I will do neither of these for you. Your goal is to make it as easy as possible for me to locate your best path to the ballot, and to essentially write my RFD for me through your weighing analysis. I'll be upset if you make me clear up clash or do my own weighing analysis, and your speaks will decrease even if I vote for you.

4. If the debate is a complete wash, I default to the first-speaking team (not con/squo) because I believe in the structural advantage of the second team.

Specifics:

- Speed. Go for it — I'll be able to follow, but I'll let you know if you aren't clear. If I feel that you're abusing this (think borderline spreading), then I'll lower your speaks but I won't vote against you for it. Clarity and quality of argumentation are always the most important.

- Arguments. Any type of argument is fine as long as it's topical and not blatantly offensive. I try to be tabula rasa, and I might bump up your speaks if you run creative arguments that fit a well-warranted narrative.

- Extensions. All offense you want me to evaluate must be in the summary and the final focus. You can extend terminal defense from rebuttal straight into the final focus and I'll evaluate it, but I still prefer it being in the summary as well. Every extension should include (1) evidence, (2) explanation of warrant, (3) impact, and (4) how I should weigh the argument (especially in the final focus). Clear signposting is critical.

- Evidence. Minimum citation is author and date (institution is also nice). I dislike calling for evidence, but I'll do it if (1) something seems suspicious, or (2) you explicitly tell me to call for the other team's evidence. I'll drop any team with a blatant evidence violation, but if it's something like sketchy debate-math then it's better to just point it out in speech. Have your cards ready: I'll drop a card and lower your speaks if you can't produce it within 2 minutes. Don't call for cards that you won't use. When exchanging evidence, do it right away and don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Crossfire. I don't evaluate it, so you need to extend concessions in later speeches. Ask real questions and keep answers brief if possible; don't try to fit a new speech or I'll lower speaks.

- Theory. I don't have a nuanced familiarity with theory debates, but I will evaluate it if you overexplain how I should weigh the argument in the round. Generally, all arguments are fair game unless blatantly offensive. If you think an argument is abusive, it's better to explain this to me as a response and I'll weigh the argument less, but I lean away from voting directly off of theory arguments. In short, only run it if you really know what you're doing, and even then, use it with caution.

How to get good speaks (in order):

1. WEIGH. The easier my vote is, the higher your speaks are.

2. Signpost. Make flowing as easy as possible.

3. Have a strong narrative / strategy throughout the round.

4. Bonus: creative arguments, making me laugh.

How to get bad speaks (in order):

1. Be mean to the other team.

2. Do something sketchy with evidence.

3. Abuse crossfire with long speeches instead of questions.

4. Speak quickly to the point of spreading.

I'm writing this paradigm for my dad

He's a parent judge but has judges multiple times before and I have ranted to him about rounds before so he knows some things.

Don't go too fast. Your speed doesn't matter as much as quality, quality > quantity.

Be respectful of your opponents, don't be too loud and don't insult anyone. No racism/sexism/homophobia/etc

Your arguments don't matter, no preconceptions in this round, you can read anything you want with a warrant. Explain more complicated arguments slowly and make it make sense, because my dad won't have any biases.

He sort of flows, but it's more of a note talking, so don't focus too much on the line by line.

Just treat him like a lay in terms of speed and jargon and explanation, but you can run whatever non-discriminative arguments with him that you want to(including things like spark, I confirmed this myself, you just really need to warrant it out and always articulate reasons clearly). Don't forget to weight, slowly and clearly, like you would on a normal lay.

Email Chain: Geodb8 AT gmail dot com

[…]

Debated in the New York Urban Debate League (Bronx Law) 2008-2014 and the University of Iowa 2014-2019.

Summer Lab leader: 1x ECLI, 1x DDI, 2x NYUDL, 3x Cal Berk, 1x GDI.

Argument assistant: West H.S., McQueen H.S., Lane Tech H.S., and most recently, CSU Long Beach.

General thoughts:

I vote for the team that did the better debating. I default to first weighing the impact calc debate and focus almost exclusively on the flow to determine what arguments to evaluate. I do not like judge intervention and prefer you all successfully determine the best metric to evaluating the debate.

Speaker points:

While speed is completely fine, please do not sacrifice clarity to “get through a card,” it translate to poor spreading and muddles the rest of the speech. Remember to follow your roadmap, allocate time, sign post, and commit to line-by-line refutation. Refrain from disorganization, shadow extensions, and poor rhetorical skills. While all Cross examinations are open, consider they are as important to your speaks as constructives and rebuttals.

Affirmatives:

Whether or not you read a plan is less important than winning offense against a competing strategy, procedural violation, or DA. In short, win that the aff is a good idea/performance/policy implementation.

a) K/Performance AFF’s

I think 1ACs should be tangibly related to the resolution. 1ACs are research projects and yearly resolutions are the result of a research paper written and voted for by the community. Effectively your AFF is a response to community consensus and their underlying assumptions.

K’s

Critiques are arguments based on philosophical inquiries. If you do not know or understand the philosophy you are advancing it will likely show throughout the debate and can negatively effect speaker points. More importantly, I will not fill in gaps for inaccurate or poor-quality arguments. Remember I focus on what’s happening/the flow.

That aside, I am very familiar with philosophies across numerous cannons.

CP’s

Neg has the burden to prove mutual exclusivity, a CP without a net benefit is just another plan and plan plan debate isnt a thing, the permutation will probably win every time.

a) Method debates

While I am sympathetic to “no-perms,” the negative must prove a link greater than omission. The best Counter methods are stylistically, theoretically or methodologically different than the 1AC then generate offense based on those differences.

Procedurals

a) T/FW

Topicality is a debate about words, the (mis)use of them and their importance. T’s appendage, Framework is a heuristic for debate, a vision for how competitors should engage the activity. While the words topicality and framework are used interchangeably a good debater will identity what they are being called to answer/defend so to make more convincing arguments.

i) Framework specific

Limits is an internal link to a terminal impact; K aff counter interpretations should be bound by the resolution; ontology/epistemology arguments are responsive to FW; I usually vote for FW on TVAs, ground, and procedural fairness.

b) Theory

Easiest debates to decide. Difficult debates to execute. Do not go for theory if you aren’t informed of the meticulous refutation you must accomplish to get the ballot. Believe it or not, there was once a time people went for theory their entire final rebuttal. Conversely, ask whether those few seconds amounts to a W or just defense to prevent the other team from winning on theory.

c) Ethics violations:

These are acts or words done by a competitor that deserves ending the debate. Preferably the tournament organizers resolve the alleged issue. This includes card clipping.

Card clipping claims STOP the debate. Note: I am always either following a speaker on my own pc or listening for the last word they say in each card.However, a card clipping violation requires the claimant provides evidence otherwise I will be stuck piecing together what I believe happened as opposed to whatI know happened.

A more subtle way of committing an ethical violation is stealing prep.

I use to steal prep. Only in the sense that I put my plastic podium, laptop, flow, and sent out the email chain after prepping. But the intentional stealing of prep, actively writing materials, organizing speech docs or speaking to your partner is not fair and excessive prep stealing will result in considerable speaker point deductions.

DAs

Quick observation —the community has elected to have these debates in various parts of the flow as opposed to just a DA page. Linear DAs are on an all time high and overlooking these random DAs may cause a card to turn into a viable strat.

DA proper —I subconsciously rely on an offense/defense paradigm on every flow and can follow internal link chains so I am game for traditional DA debates.

En fin

I start deciding who won by organizing my flow in order of importance, I read evidence if contested or heavily relied on, I weigh your arguments against each other and confirm lines can be drawn between speeches so to discern new arguments.

Lastly, I’m usually flowing cross examination. Explain your arguments well, ask good questions and above all, be respectful.

—————————

Notes:

- James Roland an outstanding educator in the activity gave a lecture at the first camp I attended on being a successful Policy Debater: https://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/tag/james-rowland/

- Top 5 debate movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EacYl00YzZ0

I am a parent judge who values common sense, clear logic, and coherence.

1. Arguments shall be clear and well-articulated, even if they do not cover every aspect.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc if you do so). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous. I default to reasonability.

4. Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.

5. Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech, and collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary.

6. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during the crossfire.

Judging Criteria

Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 200 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions.

Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required, don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.

Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence, being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I look forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, and extra points are awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me, as to why your contentions make more sense compared to your opponents.

I will not call for cards unless I need them for my flow verification.

Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.

"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

This is a retired account as I no longer coach or compete in competitive high school debate. However, here is a video of me doing the activity I loved way back in 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNKKYA5KiO4

Here is my old paradigm:

Debate is a game, play to win.

-General-

Started circuit-level pf my junior year, was a speech kiddo before that. Qualified to Gold TOC both years and auto-qualified for the second, qualified to NSDA junior year and auto-qualified for senior year.

I'll vote on anything. Tech > truth, tabula rasa.

Postround as hard as you want. (Post-round means ask questions about my decision)

Cool with anyone speaking in any cross-examination, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved.

If you're going over 300 wpm(words per minute), send a speech doc and slow down on analytics not in the doc.

If the tourney is online, send the speech doc anyways in case something cuts out

If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

Dump all you got, but at least be responsive.

First summary doesn't need to extend dropped defense.

Weigh. "Probability" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything that you say is "probability weighing" is probably just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal.

-Progressive-

Go for it, I encourage it.

Know the difference between theory and a K, and structure your theory shells.

Go as may off as you want against willing teams.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak at a normal conversational speed. It would be helpful to me if you clearly signpost. Please explain the "why"s and not just the "what"s. Thank you.

I did PF for four years (JV and Varsity) at Ridge High School and graduated from there in 2014. I was involved on both the local, state, and national (including TOC) circuits and have judged the Harvard Forensics Tournament for a few years.

Things to know about me as a judge:

- I'm fine with speed. Speak as quickly as you'd like, though don't get to policy-levels of spreading unless you're extremely clear and understandable. I flow all speeches but if I can't write as quickly as you are speaking then there's a risk I might miss an argument or two.

- I will not consider an argument that you bring up in your case and then drop. If you want me to consider an argument, remember to extend it in summary / FF. If your opponent continues to extend a warrant / evidence / argument from their case into summary / FF and you have not rebutted it at all or ignored it, I will extend it to the end of the flow and consider it when judging who won the round. I generally vote off summary / final focus so if there's something you really want me to consider, bring it up then.

- I do not flow CX and will not consider an argument that is brought up there and then subsequently dropped.

- Please, please weigh your arguments for me. If you don't weigh your arguments against that of your opponent, I will be forced to weigh them myself which is no fun for you. Give me your impacts and tell me why your impact is bigger or more important.

- I'm not a stickler for evidence battles, so don't go too crazy repeatedly asking for your opponent's evidence unless you are pretty sure their evidence is sus or wrong or inaccurate, then of course go ahead and ask for it and then attack it during CX or one of your speeches. However, if the round comes down to a specific piece of evidence, I might call for it myself. If it's grossly exaggerated, wrong, or misconstrued then I'll drop that evidence from my consideration.

- Please don't use non traditional frameworks such as LD or policy-like theory frameworks. Even though I am comfortable with more technical arguments (as opposed to a truly lay judge) I still do believe that teams should stick to the heart of PF in being accessible to all and I will most likely ignore the framework completely.

- Track your own prep time (and if you want to, your opponents prep time) - because I won't.

- Be respectful!

I did PF for four years, now I’m a coach for Walt Whitman and a college debater.

If you’re comfortable, please put your pronouns in your tab account.

I'm a pretty standard tech judge, however I care infinitely more about good logical warranting than cards.

I can deal with any speed, but if you're going fast please signpost clearly.

I don't require all defense to be extended in first summary, however if it's frontlined you should respond if you want to extend it.

If you have any questions about my feedback or decision, feel free to ask. Be respectful tho.

I am a first time parent judge but have a little knowledge on PF.

First, please be respectful and kind to your opponents.

Second, speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Otherwise, I may not hear what you're saying.

Third, please signpost your arguments in a logical flow.

Finally, some technical guidelines:

1. Please don't run progressive arguments, as I'm unlikely to understand them.

2. Use cross as a time to ask questions, not make points. I will not evaluate it (except for respectfulness), and if a point is important, bring it up in a speech.

3. Don't read offensive overviews in first rebuttal. It's already hard enough to respond to 8 minutes of speech in 4.

4. Please weigh and make my decision easy.

I will evaluate both based on how you debate but also the validity of your points. Be honest, as I will take a look at contentious cards after the round.

Hello Debaters,

I'm a parent judge who observed over 48 hours of PF training when I administrated those training courses. I judged CNDF, BP, and PF tournaments at the local, national, and international levels. I started judging at the CNDF tournaments four years ago, and have served as a volunteer judge at PF tournaments for two debate seasons.

No spreading. Clarity and logical analysis work better for me. Since the debate is an exercise for critical thinking, I would be happy to learn from you what the fundamental issues/questions should be solved in this motion/resolution. 

PF - I don't mind speed as long as it is clear and proper enunciation. I judge based on how good you make your case, with logic and good evidence and relevancy. How well you do during your rebuttal and how well you do in crossfire and your closing argument. If it come down to a tie, then I will weigh your speaking ability in tone, volume, delivery and clarity.

tldr: traditional flow judge with nat-circuit experience, prefers well warranted and narrative debates, does not enjoy speed

Hi! Quick background about me, I am old now but used to debate at Boston Latin. Hit me up on FB with any questions before the round.

Think of me like a lay judge trapped in a tech debater's body. I will flow, I am (usually?) tech>truth, tabula rasa blah blah blah but I will vote 99 times out of 100 for the team that a) collapses and weighs strategically, b) provides a clearer narrative across all speeches, c) actually warrants their args (I really don't care how many cards you dump on me if I don't hear a clear warrant). Don't just extend your args, tell me why I should care about your arguments in the real world or at least care more about your arguments than your opponents'.

I never ran progressive args while I debated, so I have a pretty high threshold to hearing them in round. Once again, I'm flexible: if there's something in the round that truly warrants such an arg, read it. Just don't get all caught up in technical mumbo-jumbo as much as just trying to keep things clear and reasonable for me.

I am not great at flowing speed, and I never preferred to go ultra-fast when I debated so don't expect me to be able to follow along if you are gonna pull an Eminem (at least Em is usually pretty clear when he spits).

The activity is meant for everyone to have fun and learn so honestly just do whatever y'all do best and lemme know if there is anything I can do better to accommodate you as debaters.

Please do not spread. Lay judge.

Hi everyone! (tab emojis are so drippy why dont more people use them)

A little background about me: I'm currently a first-year at Bowdoin College. I debated for Newton South for three years on the nat circuit and was a novice captain my senior year. Also, I love cats!! So if you have a cat at home please introduce them to me :,)

Now, onto how I judge in rounds:

Don't call me judge. (Ex: in cross "JUDGE you have to listen to me". idk its so agressive when ppl do this im legit 19 i dont have a law degree. If your speech is good you should not need to get my attention by saying "judge," I should already be paying attention).

Don't run theory or any progressive arguments.

Overall I'm a pretty regular flow judge. For a visual: lay------------------------------me----ultra-flow

If you want to have a super tech round and you know your opponent is good w it, go for it (I know those rounds are the most fun)

Speed: I'm pretty okay with speed, just no spreading. If its early in the morning maybe uhh don't go as fast.

Arguments in round: I like truthful arguments backed by logical (and truthful) evidence. I will vote for more out there arguments if they are not contested in round. I'm tech>truth unless you don't properly weigh and then I have to intervene with my own weighing.

Round strategy: please collapse on your arguments throughout the round. By second summary you should not be extending all three of your contentions and all your links. If you dump DUMB offense in rebuttal to the point where you're turning climate change and sayings it's good I just... do not like that. I love me some turn heavy rebuttals but yall know what I say be respectful with strategy.

Please frontline turns in second rebuttal. Defense is okay to frontline too if you have the time.

WEIGH. Oh. My. GOD. WEIGH. You don't want me coming up with my own weighting analysis for the round because guess what, when that happens I a lot more truth>tech than you'll like (like sorry a nuclear war just isn't going to happen oops). Tell me how I should write my ballot. Metaweighing <3 Start weighing as early as you can in round. Final focus is too late to bring up new weighing mechanisms.

Don't be mean in cross. There is a fine line between an aggressive cross persona and just straight up talking over people. If you can't walk that line then just stick to a kinder cross persona. Also, my attention during cross is ~2/10 compared to 10/10 during regular speeches.

I have ZERO (0) tolerance for any sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. in round.

Have fun! Feel free to ask me more questions to clarify in round.

I am a parent judge.

Also disregard the last update.

I am a parent judge. I have been “coached” by my MS debater on the structure of the debate and main ideas of the topic. So, I am somewhat familiar with it.

I understand that in some cases you must speak fast to cover as much information about your case as possible. As far as it is organized and you give pointers throughout the speech that I can follow and connect, I am OK with speed.

I also understand that you are passionate about your arguments. Maintaining respect is very important.

I will be tracking each point in your case, how you defend them and how you negate your opponent’s case. As far as you do it convincingly, you should be good!

Best wishes!

Anju.

Parent judge

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

I am a historian of the classical Greek and Roman period, and I have a lot of experience with classical rhetoric. I often think of arguments through the lens of classical rhetoric. I am looking to be persuaded by arguments. I consider whoever wins the most arguments to have won the round. Additionally, I am not looking for speed but rather clear explanation of argument.

Email: parth.mathuria98@gmail.com

Update: Please send me speech docs for at least case and rebuttal.

I debated in Public Forum for three years. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Debate as you wish, but the game comes along with adaptation and my preferences are as follows:

1. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. Don’t talk too fast and signpost clearly. Don't be overly aggressive in cross otherwise your speaking points will reflect that.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Debate is about learning and topic discourse, and please make it as such.

A few other specifics

- Don't read an offensive overview in second rebuttal

- For an argument to be voteable, I want uniqueness, link, and impact to be extended. In ff, the threshold for extensions is a lot lower

- Since I debated PF I do not know how to evaluate any progressive arguments so do it at your own risk. Overall, debate is supposed to be fun. So I am always open to any type of crazy or way out there argument. As long as it's warranted I'll go for it.

I care deeply about warrant strength and will intervene against over-claimed impacts. Please avoid theory and be reasonable.

I appreciate strong evidence along with viable warrants.

Good speaking is imperative.

Be respectful during cross, and don't spread.

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how you treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Spreading offers no educational value to debate. Talking fast I am cool with if you have the diction for it!

LD debate

Not best judge for theory but I’ll listen and evaluate any clear argument

The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, organization, and clarity.

and

Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)

and

Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.

POLICY

1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and convince me it would work in practice

- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. But once again, make it clear and easy to follow.

2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and

3. Cross Ex is binding, it’s still a speech act

A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan

PUBLIC FORUM

- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments

- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"

debate history: I debated PF and policy for Newark Science from 2015-2017. I graduated in 2017. I have been judging PF, policy, and LD since 2016.

I am a fairly new parent judge and follow the guidance that was given to judges in terms of what to evaluate - specifically, “the clash of ideas...communicated in a manner persuasive to the citizen judge”. To me, this means plain English, reasonable pace and organized, well explained arguments supported by relevant evidence and a constructive countering of the arguments of the opposing team.

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Hi! My name is Haley and I am a freshman at Georgetown. I have no experience with debate whatsoever, so please try your best to not speak quickly. I probably will not understand. Also, please stay respectful and kind.

Hey, my name's Malachi. I debated in HS doing local tourneys in Arizona, went to Nats in 2019 doing World Schools. My main events were PF, LD, and Extemp.

GENERAL

I'll write a detailed RFD for each round but in general I'm looking for arguments based more on logic than on cards. You need evidence and you need a deep understanding of the issues at play, but arguing cards verbatim will get you nowhere. You aren't the associated press, you don't get to tell me the news. I want you to use your cards to lay a groundwork of facts, then make an original argument based on those facts. This is all pretty basic, I expect everyone to know this.

Other than that I'm not picky. I'll flow everything but you still need to extend args from speech to speech and modify them each time to respond to rebuttals. Signpost!!!! Make my job easy.

claim -> warrant -> impact

It needs all 3 to be an argument. You should probably attack your opponent's warrants more than their impacts, but both are fine. Give me a mechanism to weigh impacts, or I will probably default to util. You can come up with creative frameworks and you can debate frameworks.

make jokes, if its funny ill up your speaks

I'm gonna time your speeches and your prep. Don't cheat. You should also cross time each other.

PROGRESSIVE

If you're in LD you can do progressive arguments or normie arguments, I have no preference. If you are doing progressive though you really need to explain the philosophy/logic you're using in basic terms. You can argue Baudrillard and Derrida but if you don't explain it well enough for your opponent to be able to understand, you haven't won.

I am more familiar with k's than theory, so be warned. You can totally run theory but make it reasonable and don't bully your opponent with ridiculousness that they don't understand. That's not true debating.

Perms are fun but don't go overboard, pics are weird but I'm open to convincing. If you do either you need to hard-sell why your two cases are different, and why yours has a better impact.

WHAT FLOWS

If you don't respond to any offensive arg in 1st summary it's conceded. You can still make new logical claims in summary based on the previous stuff said but no new cards, no new contentions.

What's said in cross is absolute, no backsies. That being said, you need to bring it back up in your speeches. Also don't be annoying in cross, answer your opponent's questions precisely and quickly. Don't do long rants, don't dodge questions. It's ok to concede stuff, if your argument is strong you'll be able to defend it.

IN CLOSING

Summarize the debate in a biased way. You need to say both what you won and why your opponent failed to rebut your claims. I'll probably disclose, and you can ask questions or tell me why you think I missed something. But don't be a jerk, I'm not changing the decision.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the other bad things at any point. I'm not a parent judge so you don't need to pretend to be besties with your opponent, but if you're not respectful we'll have issues. Ad hominem is not an argument.

you can curse, you can vape, you can spread, you can say like and ummm. I'll give speaks but you won't win a debate on your elocution.

I coach Public Forum and British Parliamentary debate at the National High School Debate League of China.

Time each other including each other’s prep time

Please email me the speech docs & any evidence read : sunny@debatersdiary.cn

I hope you please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! I would run disclosure theory every round. It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway.

When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly and emphasize impacts.

I like to see teams:

- Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round.

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- I am not familiar with kritiks.

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

I dislike:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

Hi

Did PF for 4 years at King High School, now attending Emory University in ATL.

Please add me to the email chain/google doc (I prefer google doc): Khem6th@gmail.com

If both teams agree, I will give 45 seconds of prep time instead of grand cross (taken simultaneously by both teams after summary, does not get added to individual team prep time).

Feel free to postround me, I don't really mind since it makes me a better judge and my decisions more clear. My decision, as written, will not change.

Pretty standard PF flow:

- Warranting is big important – cards shouldn’t do all your work

- Second speaking team should at least frontline turns in rebuttal, I will put less weight on new frontlines made to defense in Second Summary (meaning a blippy response/backline in final by 1st speaking team will be adequate)

- Anything in Final has to be in Summary, except weighing for either team and unresponded defense for 1st speaking team

- I will only vote on things that make it into final focus, I work backwards on my flow

- If there's no ink on the link chain, you can use blips to extend it in final focus, but try to keep it cohesive in summary.

- Please collapse

- Explicit weighing (jargon) and explanations of mechanisms

- I prefer more probable, low severity impacts over less probable, high severity impacts – the best thing you can do is provide historical examples

- Speed: I prefer well-warranted, conversation-paced debate. If you are to go fast, keep in mind that I flow on my computer and can type like max 80wpm when I have text in front of me, so don’t go mad fast else I’ll miss stuff

- I will vote on the easiest path to the ballot

- I do not care about cross, make it fun, anybody can talk if they want to

-"Are you tech over truth?" - to some extent, I will evaluate an argument I know to be false if its not responded to but this doesn't mean that you should skip warranting just cause its on the flow. Like other judges, my threshold for quality of responses goes down the more out-there an argument is.

Progressive arguments:

- General:

I do not have a lot of experience with progressive argumentation (this means probably argue util for a better ballot). If you want me to vote on progressive arguments, please give me explicit explanation of what the link is and good explanation of why the impact comes first. I don’t really like unwarranted “moral duty” arguments but warranted and explained moral weighing is fine.

- Kritiks:

With Kritiks, I have little experience with them as well – if you want me to vote on a Kritik, I need really defined role of the ballot arguments of why my vote makes a structural change. I don’t understand a lot of K lit so please make it as if you were talking to a friend of why something in the system needs to change and less like you’re in front of a well-versed policy debater.

- Theory:

I have a little more experience with theory than general progressive args and Kritiks, but normative arguments need very good Standards and Voters/Impact for me to vote on it – I generally like undisclosed, paraphrased (heathen statement right?) PF but I’m open to good arguments on that or on other norms. Also, I do need you to go slower and present an actual flowable shell.

Evidence Ethics:

Please do not take any longer than a minute to find a piece of evidence, and if you are having technical issues finding a card please just say so.

Evidence should not be misrepresented, whether its cut or paraphrased. I will read evidence as its written, not how its cut or tagged, even if it’s not brought up by your opponents – I think it encourages lazy research practices and abuse of PF rules.

This being said, I likely won't call for a card unless it is a) pivotal in my decision, b) its veracity is contested and important, or c) if both teams read opposing evidence and none gives a warrant of why their's is better

Speaks:

- I think speaks should be based off the pool, so no set rules on scale

- If you make the round fun for me to judge, or if I laugh, you and everybody else in the round will probably get higher speaks

- I don't listen to cross, so do whatever you want really

- I appreciate competitors being nice to each other and friendly, it makes the activity more fun for everyone. This event, though competitive, should support a learning environment with a community so treat your opponents like you would your friends in conversation :)

Misc:

I don't have an onboard camera for my computer, and its a hassle for me to use the usb plugin one. I likely won't have my camera on.

Yall gotta rock with the oral rfd ❗️❗️

I am a parent judge. I have judged Debate for several years, and I am familiar with the structure and purpose of the sessions. I would like you to time yourselves. Please do not speak too quickly so I understand everything you are saying. Also, please weigh clearly at the end of the round, sign post throughout, and explain distinct impacts in your final focus.

I have judged speech for 3 years, and always go by NSDA rules. My critiques are known to be positive, and also share helpful information that can be of service to you.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

As a judge, it is my priority to create a safe space for speakers to grow and to have fun.

I have been in debating game for 6 years now as a speaker and judge. I have coached a provincial team and currently the shadow coach for the South African national team.

Things I like to see in speeches are a well understanding of the topic , strategic awareness and being able to adapt your case and responses to what is most contentious in the debate.

Hello debate enthusiasts,

Iam a parent judge who enjoys watching public forum debate. For the benefit of the community, I would like to use this passion and turn it into service as a debate judge.

Regarding speaking preferences, clarity is very mportant to me. I dislike spreading and prefer a more moderate pace.

Also, I value thoughtful and insightful debates with emphasis on impacts and command over topic literature.

In my book of judging, logic is as important as evidence.

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

I have experience as a practice judge for my highschool's debate team. I am currently a junior at the Lebanese American University pursuing a BE in mechanical engineering.

As an engineer, I am convinced by logic backed up by numbers/statistics. Other than that, feel free to debate however you want.

Finally, please be respectful towards the opposing team, and most importantly have fun!

Experienced PF judge, First time LD judge

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good warranting and sound reasoning. Explain your evidence rather than just stating it.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad

Rounds should NOT have any theory arguments.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

I did a variety of debate in high school, and did a small amount of parli in university. I currently coach PF debate.

I am basically open to any type of argumentation, from extremely standard debate to perfomace kritiks and beyond. However, I will need you to fully explain arguments in a clear way for me to accept them. I know just as little about West Africa (or what ever the current topic is at the time of your reading this) as I do the intricacies of a specific critical theory argument, so clear explanation is key.

Although I was better with speed while I was debating, my ability to comprehend spreading has definitely gotten rusty. If you do go fast, emphasize key warrants and tags so that they stand out. Unfortunately, if you go extremely fast you will probably lose me.

Please be decent and kind.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I try my best to flow however you need to speak slow. If you talk too fast I will put my pen down and stop flowing what you say.

I don't love theory and would really prefer if you not run it. If you still feel compelled to run it, go at your own risk because it has to be well explained.

You have to weigh in summary and the voter issues should be made clear by the end of the round.

Overall, be polite and you will be fine.

I am a new parent judge. Clear and measured speech will best allow me to assess the quality of your arguments. Looking for clear claims with warrant and impact and well-constructed counters. Volume of points made is of less value than clarity and connection to the resolution.

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

Hello! I'm a sophomore in college and have been a part of the Harvard College Debating Union for 2 years. I did 4 years of PF in high school.

I will flow your rounds, but please do not spread or speak quickly to try and cram things into your speeches. Quality over quantity, my friends. If you speak at a pace where your opponents and I simply can't understand you, it's a bad time for everyone involved.

Just because an article was published more recently or in a "more reputable journal/source" than another does not necessarily mean that it is more true or should be weighed more in my decision. If you revert to this as your sole rebuttal to dismiss your opponents' evidence, it makes me think you don't understand the evidence you're using.

On that note, just saying something is "empirically true" is not a rebuttal. Please elaborate if you're going to say this or I will be very sad.

Arguments must be present in both summary and final focus for me to vote on them.

Remember to have fun! Bonus points if you can make me laugh during your round. :)

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

I'm pretty new to debate - this is my third year judging

- Please talk in a way I can understand (not too fast, not too much debate jargon, etc.)

- As I'm new to debate, just saying things like "nonunique" or "link-turn" mean absolutely nothing to me, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING PLEASE

- Despite the fact that I'm a parent judge, I will be judging how you debate not what you say, so do with that what you will

- I might call for evidence if something is fishy (so don't be fishy)

- Above all else, be respectful, nice, and cordial to your fellow debaters. Let's all have a good time with this!

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only

tabs judge. be nice, please :).

give explicit voters and weighing. basically, summarize the key points and tell me why your team deserves to win the debate.

did LD for 2 years, PF for one. Currently debate for the Harvard College Debate Union

Public Forum

TL;DR: Flow judge; line-by-line, but warrants are important. No spreading. Weigh. Stay away from progressive-style arguments.

Experience: I competed in PF from 2016-2020 (and some LD) at Phoenix Country Day School. I currently study politics, rights, and development at NYU.

General Philosophy

I am a flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If say you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

I firmly believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of debate experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. Generally, I'd much rather see well-paced debate with clear depth over high-speed debate with wide breadth.

Speed: Slow rounds > fast rounds; If you plan on spreading... don't.

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- First summary only has to extend defense if it is front-lined in second rebuttal.

- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.

Weighing: Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense (don't weigh on probability; I view probability as deriving from strength of warrants).

Evidence: I deplore evidence abuse. If you deliberately misconstrue the words or arguments of your sources, I will drop you. I will call for cards if I have good reason to suspect evidence abuse or if your opponents tell me to.

Crossfire: You will not win off of crossfire, but if you get a digression/warrant explanation and extend it into speeches, I will flow it. I promise that you won't embarrass yourself with simple clarifying questions; debate is much better when everyone knows wth is going on. Grand is unequivocally stupid; don't compromise your chance at winning/speaks by getting all frustrated, I'm probably ignoring the content anyways.

Speaks: Are a reflection of politeness, oral/rhetorical proficiency, and organization (signposting/numbering). If you demonstrate support for or knowledge about the Phoenix Suns you get +0.5.

Techy/Progressive Arguments: As a PF debater, I do not expect you to be educated on the specific formats of technical arguments. Such an expectation reeks of privilege; accessibility is the rule. I expect any argument you make to me to be conceptually understandable by a moderately educated adult with no debate experience.

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you.

- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments. No to speaker-point/disclosure theory.

Other:

- I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email.

- I prefer a chill, relaxed, and informal vibe in rounds. Have fun!

Hi

I am a parent Judge that is very new to debate. Please be respectable to your opponents and try to convey your questions/ arguments / points clearly to help me judge you better

I am a first time parent judge, please do not use any jargon and go slow so i can understand you. And do not read any progressive arguments or very technical ones because i will not understand them. Thank You and Have Fun!

Lay judge with limited local experience. Please do not spread.

Time management: Please follow the time constraints for each block. I expect debaters to self manage the slots including prep time. If any team take significantly more time (say 15+ sec) and the opposing team points that out you get penalized. Exchanging evidence is fine but be considerate of how long it takes

Key Points: If the opening round highlight your top 3-4 points by saying point 1 is xx followed by point (2) etc. It helps me follow those and see how it builds up or gets dropped as the debate progresses

Speed/Pace: Keep the pace of speech close to normal as possible. I see debaters speed up so much that I have a hard time following and will cut points for that. I value clarity and focused points over cramming 8-10 different streams of thought and speaking at the speed of light to get those said

2AR/2NR: Highlight why you are winning and which arguments you think are helping you. Highlight the impact with data points like "$100million saved" etc.

Crossfire: I do not give points for what is said is crossfire. I will listen to see what arguments are clarified and rebutted but more importantly how those arguments are then incorporated into the subsequent round(s)

Etiquette: Be courteous to the other team. Please do not be toxic or yell over each other in Cross-Ex.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Hey everyone—I'm a lay judge. I've never been exposed to PF debate before since I'm just a regular Harvard undergrad volunteering to judge this debate tournament

So, because of that, consider the accessibility of your argument to be the priority.

Consider your word economy—be economical with your words; make things ~simple~ Overpopulating a sentence with jargon, higher-level vocabulary etc. only makes it harder for me to understand what you are saying (cos im dumb), and if I can't understand what you're saying because it's clouded by impressive-sounding sentences, your argument will not land.

While in debate you may have been used to assuming the judge knows nothing, take that statement very seriously. I literally do not know anything.

other stuff:

- Don't get bogged down by line by line argumentation, or specific details. Consider the overall narrative/depth/impact of your argument to be more important.

- Tell me why you're winning an argument, and why winning that argument wins the round.

- this is not ur SoundCloud rap debut please don't try and speak as fast as possible askdjfsd

Thanks!

Hello I am a parent judge that is very new to debate. I need the debaters to please speak slowly and clearly. I will vote for the team that provides the most clear and convincing argument.

I debated PF in high school.

Framework - it is not necessary for pro or con to provide a framework or definitions. I will go by with whatever is on the flow and if you are having a framework debate, I will gauge which framework to use when deciding the ballot. I do not flow crossfire, so any point brought up in crossfire must be reiterated in your speeches for it to have any effect on my final decision. However, crossfire will play a role in your speaker points.

Summary and Final Focus - The Final Focus can only bring up arguments that are stated in the summary. The summary can give me a logical rundown of the current flow and start weighing but you must weigh in the Final Focus.

The con defends the status quo unless otherwise stated in the resolution. Also, for rebuttal, logical responses are much much better than card dumps! Signposting would be nice. NO SPREADING PLEASE. Thank you :)

Personal timers are fine (I will keep time as well).

Technically a senior on leave from Harvard, I debated 4 years in Public Forum for The Dalton School.

For 1st Speakers:

During Constructive: Please make eye contact with me during your constructive speech. You have ideally read your own case at least 2 times before round, so I want you to at least try to make a personal connection (i.e. genuinely try to sell me on your case).

During Summary: Please start boiling down your points. I want you to start weighing during this speech, and tell me how you're winning.

If you go for every single point in the round, you will lose 0.5 speaker points. Your job is to start condensing it for me. Also, don't just do it for me; as a former 2nd speaker, I remember how much easier my job became when my 1st speaker would deliver a very clear and effective summary. So, please do it for your partner, too!

For 2nd Speakers:

During Rebuttal: Please start out with an overview, explaining why I should listen to your framework / overview over your opponents, not just telling me why your framework is valid.

If you're the 1st speaking rebuttal, just go down their flow. Don't just dump evidence; you could read me all the evidence in the world, but I want you to provide me with the logic behind such arguments. Explain any turns you may make clearly.

If you're the 2nd speaking rebuttal, I want you to not only go down their case, but also respond to any turns your opponents make on your case.

During Final Focus: Write my ballot for me. Do this, and you will win. Explain to me what arguments you are winning on; hammer in on things I should extend in the flow and explain to me why they're important. Don't just read me evidence I should extend, or else I have no justification for doing so. Anything that you say in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary will be ignored.

General Stuff:

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow, or else I will be lost, which will be very frustrating.

2) I don't actually flow cross, so please provide crossfire analysis at the beginning of subsequent speeches if you want anything said during cross to be weighed in the round (concessions, turns, logic explanations, etc.).

3) Any disrespectful or racist, sexist, inappropriate, etc things said in round will lead to an automatic 25 speaker points or less, and depending on severity, may even lead to an automatic win to the other team.

4) At the end of the day, it's just a debate round where you guys are arguing a topic you've spent hours researching. Have fun, WEIGH, and enjoy!

I am a lay parent judge. This is my first time judging.

Speak slowly and clearly or else I won't understand you; I will vote for the team I understand more. The faster you speak, the less likely I will be able to understand you.

That means I like you prioritizing responses rather than speeding through ten really fast. Also, I don't know much about this topic, so please explain your arguments and responses in a way that makes sense throughout the round.

Please be polite, not overly aggressive, and have fun!

For virtual tournaments:
> Please remember to check and verify your video and audio connections and feeds with all participants and judges before you begin.

>BE ON TIME.

Hello,

I am a lay judge. My professional background is in theater, but I have many a passing fancy in a myriad of political topics, local, domestic, and international.

What I look for:
-Know your audience. As a lay-judge, you can assume I know nothing about the topic on which you're speaking. So, familiarize me, catch me up, inform me, but please address the arguments and your opponents.
-Flow: I will be listening intently to catch that you are attacking the arguments made while staying on track with your own points and stance.
-Style: Are you speaking confidently? with conviction? Are you speaking like you're knowledgeable with the topic? Are you omitting conversational fillers, such as "likes," "uh's," and "um's"
Are you speaking with your hands? Are they distracting instead of emphasizing?
Are you speaking with any camp in your voice? Or upspeak? Consider how that can color your delivery or distract from your message.

*Spreading: don't do it. Your audience needs to be able to follow your arguments and clearly understand you, that can be difficult when they're being talked at instead of talked to like a person.

*Concise: If you can be one thing, be efficient.

Updated for Harvard 2021:

While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.

I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.

Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com

Background

Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015

Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017

Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-

npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018

I am a recent high school graduate from Scarsdale High school, and I debated PF for 2 years in high school.

I understand how stressful debate can be, so here are some tips and some of my preferences:

-I know it can be hard, but try to stay calm and speak loudly and clearly

-Use off-time roadmaps or sign-posting to keep your speeches organized

-Make sure you clearly explain your claims (I.E. always tell me a clear logical flow for why/how something happens)

-Be respectful to the opposing team, do not speak over them or interrupt during crossfire

-I believe that probability isn't weighed a lot and I think that works against teams.

-I will pay attention to cross but I will not flow most of it unless it is something that is being contested the entire round.

-Identify and clarify your voters in summary and final focus.

-I know how irritating it is to not have the round disclosed. I will do my best to make a decision and disclose the result, but sometimes it needs extra time. If I do disclose and you would like some more reasoning/tips after RFD if you ask me politely I will be more than happy to help.

-I won't usually call for a card unless it is the deciding factor in the round or I believe it is being misused.

-If possible keep debate jargon to a minimum

-I don't evaluate Ks and theory

Finally, just have fun and do your best.

Tabula rasa. I have no preconceptions regarding the arguments. Whoever clashes better wins.

Background

I am currently a college debater in BP debate at Vanderbilt University. I competed in World Schools, International and Domestic Extemp, and PF throughout high school, so I am familiar with the procedures of multiple different formats.

Judging Paradigm

I make my judging decisions based on what I find to be the most practical and convincing. In order to do so, I need to see fully fleshed out argumentation with justified reasoning and impacts. Your arguments should focus on the middle ground of the debate, addressing things that are fair and not abusive to your opponents. I like to see teams explain to me why they should win the round. I should have a reason to vote for you, not just a reason to vote against your opponents.

Style:

Be nice to your opponents. I am okay with calling your opponents out when they do something they shouldn't have done, but be nice about it. Limit attacks on your opponents to their arguments, not the people delivering them.

Speed - I don't have issues with moderate speed, but if you are speaking too quickly and I can't understand you, I will be unable to flow the round. A lot of my decision making comes from what is on my flow.

Organization - I like when debaters provide a road map and signpost throughout their speech so that it is easier to follow along with the arguments and reasoning. Signposting is especially important during rebuttal speeches, so I know what arguments you are specifically addressing and where to put that on my flow. I enjoy it when responses and arguments are clearly enumerated and organized.

Framework - Keep your framing fair. I am open to an interpretation of the resolution/motion, but that interpretation should not be abusive to your opponents. Make sure you respond to your opponents' framework and defend yours throughout the round. It's very hard for me to vote for a team that lost their framework and interpretation of the motion.

Email: bpowersbeggs@gmail.com

Background: I debated in LD, PF, and occasionally congress for Lewis and Clark HS (Spokane, WA) from 2014-2018, as well as competing in a range of speech events. Currently, I am a Materials Science and Engineering student at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH) graduating in 2022. This is my second year judging for Hawken, but I also have done some judging and coaching for Lewis and Clark HS since graduating.

Paradigm: Progressive or lay are both fine, but please don't go full policy on me. I am fine with speed (especially now that online school has me watching all my lectures on double speed), but I prefer if debaters leave spreading to policy because there is a risk that I won't understand you if you go too fast.

I'm generally down for any argument or interpretation of the resolution as long as it is well-supported.

Theory is OK, but I prefer it be used appropriately as a tool to improve the debate or the debate community as a whole, not just as an easy way to win by playing the a priori card.

My favorite part of debate is cross-ex, but make sure to bring up the relevant points gathered from it in your speech.

K's are fine but please explain them

I have a soft spot for counterplans as long as they don't steal all of the ground of the debate to the extent that it is unfair to the other debater.

I love impact calc and strategic debate. Don't be afraid to go all in on one or two points towards the end of the debate if they will win you the round (but you also don't have to collapse to one contention). Make sure to tie the arguments back to the weighing mechanism/framework/Values/VC's, or whatever you are calling it that round.

Please roadmap!

Cite sources with at least author and date

Treat your opponent with respect

TLDR: I'm a flow judge who is down for any argument but I want you to tell me why to vote for you at the end (KVI's!!!)

Hello! I am currently a student at UT Austin and a former debater at Plano West Senior HS. I have competed and judged rounds of Public Forum, Congress, and Extemp. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at rishikaprakash@gmail.com.

PF/Congressional Debate Paradigm:

1. Argumentation: I am most focused on the logic and content of your speeches. As a judge, the easier it is for me to understand your arguments and their clash, the easier it is for me to evaluate your performance. Evaluate the larger context of your arguments and weigh impacts. I appreciate a good argument whether I support it or not, as a judge, I try my best to stay unbiased. I will not rank debaters that fail to support and strengthen arguments with evidence. And please weigh as much as you can.

2. Content (rebutting and extending): I expect refutations to be strong and supported by both logic and evidence (if necessary). If you are expanding on a previous speaker’s arguments try to highlight how you are furthering their contention. I do not find it necessary for later speakers to say the names of previous speakers, but if it helps to clarify the evidence or arguments you are referring to, I would recommend doing so. Do not restate previous speakers’ arguments as your own, that is not extending and will not help you. I expect speakers to have rebuttals and responses in the round that are backed by logic or evidence. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it is not possible to weigh it.

3. Participation: Be an active member in the round with strong questions in cx and make your speeches relevant. Congress is a participation event, and failing to participate (speaking or questioning) will hurt your ranking. Do not use cx as a time to seem like you are participating in the round with fluff questions. I will only take note of strong questioning which requires paying attention. Make motions when necessary and try not to waste time.

4. Speaking: I appreciate a good and clear speaker, but pretty speaking isn’t enough to be successful in the round. Try your best to weigh and refute clearly and explain everything thoroughly. As a judge, I do not want to focus on your speaking style so try your best to have a speaking personality that isn’t a distraction but rather a strength.

I highly value respect for one another in congress rounds, so please remember that a strong debater is not a rude one.

Let’s have some fun, I can’t wait to see what y'all come up with. Good luck!

Hi I'm Swapna! I'm a university debater with 5 years of experience in British, Australian, and Asian Parliamentary but I'm relatively new to PF

Off-time roadmaps are cool. Honestly anything as long as your speech has some sort of structure.

Enunciate when presenting evidence. Numbers help quantify impacts insofar as the numbers are clear. Im fine with speed but make sure that you're still speaking as clearly as possible. This means enunciating as much as possible which is especially important during an online tournament.

I understand that cards are an important part of PF style debate but please state clearly what evidence you got from what source, not just throwing names around. This helps me take clearer notes.

Please make sure you are weighing your impact versus the other side throughout the entire round.

Good luck!

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Experience: I was the 2018 LD state champion in Colorado and I have competed in LD, PF, NX/FX, and OO.

Logistics: Please time yourselves and time your opponents. I will most likely be timing as well, but it's your responsibility to make sure both you and your opponent(s) stay within the allotted time. With this being said, don't cut your opponents off- let them finish their sentence.

I'm okay with speed, but if you spread to the point where it's hard for you to understand yourself, I will not vote for you.

LD: I am familiar with circuit-style but prefer traditional-style. I love value/criterion clash. Make sure to convince me why your framework wins. I will probably flow during your round, but your overarching arguments and how they tie into your framework are more important to me than whether or not you are able to cover each and every single piece of evidence your opponent mentions. Additionally, I don't make your arguments for you, so place emphasis on your arguments in your final speech.

PF: Similar to LD, with an emphasis placed on voters (especially for on-balance resolutions, weigh the round and tell me why you win). I am okay with dominant cross-fire styles but do not be rude :)

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Lastly, I like to be entertained!

I am a college student who debated in high school. I like when debaters fully engage with each other's arguments; I am impressed when you can situate your opponent's arguments and evidence in the landscape of your own. (i.e., Beyond just saying that they are wrong, explain to me why your arguments/evidence are better.)

I don't have a preference about your speaking speed, but I do think it's impolite to speak much faster than your opponent if that hinders your opponent's understanding of your arguments. This should make sense given that I want you to engage with each other.

Heads up: I am not very good at timing or giving time signals, but I will do my best. You may find it helpful to time yourself. Not required of course; only time yourself if you think that would be helpful.

My name is Zeran Qiu. i go by Oliver. I am an international student currently studying at Brandeis University. I have debated for three years in the NSDA Chinese division as a public forum debater. I would love it if debaters can respect everyone's pronouns and avoid excessive generalization during rounds. I would prefer debaters give arguments that are warranted and backed up with evidence. The speeches shall be delivered in a manner accessible to all people, i.e. avoid unnecessarily difficult terms and ideas and spreading.

Was in PF for 3 years and I competed on the local and national circuit. Flow judge.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework. PLEASE COLLAPSE, going for everything in round takes away from your ability to provide a narrative for your arguments. I will only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant, giving a detailed analysis, and the impacts of the argument. Extending card tags alone is not enough. Most importantly, Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important, which you might not necessarily agree with in the end. On a final note, I'm a stickler with evidence, meaning I appreciate evidence that explicitly says what it is that you are trying to communicate in the round; I appreciate logical analysis as well, but there are some instances where having both may serve to benefit you. Probably didn't cover everything so feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

I am a lay judge who decides who wins the round on the flow. If I have trouble deciding on who won the round, I will base my final decision on speaker points. During your speeches, I don't care if you speak fast or slow, as long as what you are saying is understandable. Good Luck!

Last Updated May 2021

My Experience:

4 years of public forum debate experience

2 years of leading my high school public forum team (Over 40 people)

Have judged 11 rounds of public forum debate spanning 4 WACFL competitions (at the novice, junior varsity and varsity skill levels)

Public forum judge for the 47th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament

My Judging Style:

1. Clear arguments backed up with stats and logical reasoning.

2. Well paced delivery and full usage of allotted time. A very fast delivery will not gain you any points, and might lose you points.

3. Be respectful to the opposition.

Good Luck Debaters,

I look forward to listening to your debate.

It will help me to listen well and make decision if you could

- speak clearly, slowly

- demonstrate team work within your team

- respect your opponent team

- show passion towards your case through precise arguments

Hi! This is her daughter! My mom is a typical lay judge whose main focus when choosing the winner is on HOW you speak (a.k.a DELIVERY OF SPEECH).

She listens to the quality of responses > quantity and also flows down which responses you extend through final focus.

Have fun! :))

The role of my position as a judge is to decide who did the better debating. My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I am brand new to debate judging and debate. I want simple and clear presentations that do not use a lot of jargon. I will expect students to time themselves and help with administrative needs. I expect evidence-backed arguments so might call to see the background information. I worked in management consulting for many years, and am a professional investor so expect the quantitative aspects to be solid and qualitative aspects to be comprehensive. I do not want rushed presentations that are hard to follow so please slow down and be as clear as possible.

Hello,

My name is Archana Rao. I have judged about 3 tournaments and at least about 8 rounds of PF debate so far. I am a lay judge.

I prefer the candidates speak clearly and slowly

I am looking for good data to support the pro and con stances

Good understanding of the stance by both participants and team effort is a big plus

When a team makes an effort to completely understand and then refute the opposition, bonus marks

Have a clear structure to the argument and following through very advantageous

Please give a roadmap before your speeches, and signpost during your speeches so I know where to mark and to flow your speeches.

Overall, structure your speeches in a way where I can easily understand whats going so I can judge your rounds easily.

And most importantly, have fun.

Best of luck,

Archana Rao

I am a parent judge.

I prefer slower, narrative debate compared to more technical styles.

Do speak clearly (speed is okay, but you must be understandable). Be nice to your opponents, enjoy your debate, tell a clear story and make it count. I value presentation, clarity of arguments and good eye contact.

I flow

Did PF for 4 years in high school (on the national circuit)

Go as zoom as you want (speech doc if ur going like Policy level Zoom tho)

Second Rebuttal should frontline turns + defense of offense they are going for - I think second summary is way too late to read new frontlines.

Weighing is very very important

Ks are chill

Shells are chill (but I default grant RVI - so if u read a shell you should also read "No RVI" if u don't want it to cost you the round)

If the round is a wash I default first speaking team - very rarely will happen.

Speaks based on speaking argumentation/contribution to the RFD.

I will disclose at the end of the round - but I'll make it quick.

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

Parent judge, no topical knowledge. Don't spread and be civil during cross.

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

I debated in high school but this is my first time judging.

I value well-explained arguments over lists of statistics without clear explanations of their significance.

I want to see arguments for why your point is decisive, not just why it is true.

Clear communication over speed and quantity of arguments and evidence.